Jump to content

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

I may need a couple days or a free weekend to parse this thread.  Is it better than Netflix?

 

I say it's a about the same: a little less streamlined than you may have wanted; and, like any other Season of a series on Netflix, it may suddenly not be available any more, next week. 😛 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'm not saying it doesn't: I haven't seen it. But, once a work is created and in public, the artist is nothing more than a slightly more knowledgeable interpreter of her own work.

The point that I think Qie is making here -- and he can jump in if I'm wrong -- is that the artist's defense of herself is dumb and actually unnecessary, because suggesting that Anne Frank's optimism about human nature was wrong is not "fascist," nor does it represent an attack upon her. And in responding to that criticism as though it were valid and logical, she's paradoxically complicit in perpetuating the nonsense that underwrites it. And that has led to a whole lot of back-and-forth, and name calling, that is taking this out of the realm of the logical, and into the personal and emotional instead.

Yeah, once we put a creative work out there, in some measure we lose control over it. I can see how the quote could be interpreted in melancholy irony, or cynicism, and still preserve a shadow of hope, regret and wistfulness even so. For the artist to reduce interpretations other than her own to "fascist" seemed rather jarring to me, but she's entitled to her opinion, as are we all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I agree, as artists what we want is for our audience to view the work and be free to develop their own interpretations, hopefully to learn from it, perhaps change due to the experience, or at the very least be affected by it.

But...what if as an artist I developed a project to demonstrate the horrors of child abuse in order to help society develop more empathy and hopefully be more inclined to help. And so I created depictions of abused children neglected and beaten, abusers lurking over them with weapons ready to strike. OK, good, it's an artistic presentation designed for a purpose.
But what if a viewer of this art came to my project and declared "oh my God that Luna Bliss likes child abuse, and I can tell this from this ironic quote she has in the project saying that children should be loved, yeah she's got to be mocking the situation with such a quote amidst so much horror".  Would I become defensive and insist that I am NOT THAT, that I am not advocating or making light of child abuse?  Of course, who would not try to defend themselves in such an instance.
THIS, is what the creator of HL did -- depicted a monstrous, dystopian city where freedom is lost in order to demonstrate where we could be heading if we don't choose love instead, encapsulating the desire to focus on love in a protected, 'happy' spot in the city, providing the contrast.

And so this specious argument that is focusing on the fact that we don't control how other people interpret our art, is BESIDE THE POINT.

I'm beginning to see that so many have not experienced what is known as "political art" before.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are quite a few pages of interpersonal disputes here, and that's no fun. Here's a reminder that any personal problems you may wish to discuss with one another should be kept to private messages, and the thread should stay on topic. That way, we're all having a good time discussing art and whatnot. There is some interesting discussion regarding what qualifies as art, and I wouldn't want to end the discussion because we can't keep the fights down.

Thanks in advance!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I agree, as artists what we want is for our audience to view the work and be free to develop their own interpretations, hopefully to learn from it, perhaps change due to the experience, or at the very least be affected by it.

But...what if as an artist I developed a project to demonstrate the horrors of child abuse in order to help society develop more empathy and hopefully be more inclined to help. And so I created depictions of abused children neglected and beaten, abusers lurking over them with weapons ready to strike. OK, good, it's an artistic presentation designed for a purpose.
But what if a viewer of this art came to my project and declared "oh my God that Luna Bliss likes child abuse, and I can tell this from this ironic quote she has in the project saying that children should be loved, yeah she's got to be mocking the situation with such a quote amidst so much horror".  Would I become defensive and insist that I am NOT THAT, that I am not advocating or making light of child abuse?  Of course, who would not try to defend themselves in such an instance.
THIS, is what the creator of HL did -- depicted a monstrous, dystopian city where freedom is lost in order to demonstrate where we could be heading if we don't choose love instead, encapsulating the desire to focus on love in a protected, 'happy' spot in the city, providing the contrast.

 

^^ I think that was an incredibly good summary of what happened! Still would have worded things differently -- knowing how forums work and all, LOL --- but I can fully see where she was coming from.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

^^ I think that was an incredibly good summary of what happened! Still would have worded things differently -- knowing how forums work and all, LOL --- but I can fully see where she was coming from.

Thanks, and yes I agree. I changed the last line to be more friendly and empathetic about the fact that many have not experienced political art and so are confused  :)   

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Thanks, and yes I agree. I changed the last line to be more friendly and empathetic about the fact that many have not experienced political art and so are confused  :)   

Regarding political art.. very often what it appears to be about is not what it is really about, for very good reasons, depending on the social climate in which it appears. Perhaps it is the opposite - many of us know political art too well and read deeper meanings into something that is simply what it seems. 😉

(disclaimer - this is a general statement and not a dig at HL in any way shape or form. I studied art history many years and now I can't look at a pipe without being suspicious)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Akane Nacht said:

Regarding political art.. very often what it appears to be about is not what it is really about, for very good reasons, depending on the social climate in which it appears. Perhaps it is the opposite - many of us know political art too well and read deeper meanings into something that is simply what it seems. 😉

(disclaimer - this is a general statement and not a dig at HL in any way shape or form. I studied art history many years and now I can't look at a pipe without being suspicious)

Well, the creator described her intent very well, and I take that at face value.

Are you saying we should not trust what she claims as her intent?

lol about the pipe

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Akane Nacht said:

Regarding political art.. very often what it appears to be about is not what it is really about, for very good reasons, depending on the social climate in which it appears. Perhaps it is the opposite - many of us know political art too well and read deeper meanings into something that is simply what it seems. 😉

(disclaimer - this is a general statement and not a dig at HL in any way shape or form. I studied art history many years and now I can't look at a pipe without being suspicious)

 

Which is really where I have to agree with Scylla here: once you publish your art, it's kinda out of your hands how ppl are going to interpret it. It can't be helped; and I venture to think, probably shouldn't be tried even. :) Not an artist myself, but the ones I know, are usually very tight-lipped about what their art is supposed to mean (and basically just leave the interpretation to the beholder). After all, instead of spoon-feeding a meaning, I feel art really makes the more lasting impression when you have to think about it for yourself. Reminds me of reading Orwell's book, 1984, in highschool, in which O'Brien says to Winston, "We shall meet in a place where there is no darkness." As a young dreamster myself, I remember being so enamoured by it! To me -- talking about dystopian worlds -- I imagined a beautiful place of light, like a heaven, where all the sorrows of the world would no longer exist! Then, many pages further, I learned it actually foreshadowed a lighted prison cell, into which no darkness is permitted, lest the prisoner be allowed to sleep. Doh! I was so bummed out by that! My long-winded point being, the interpretation of art/poetry, etc, often really shines most in our own minds; and a 'forced explanation' doesn't necessarily make the experience better.

Edited by kiramanell
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love to be free to interpret art in any way I choose, but with my keen interest in Psychology I'm always wondering what the creator means...how do they feel...what are their ethics...what truth of theirs are they hoping to reveal, if any. More so with poetry than visual mediums of art I want that meaning, and want to contrast it with my own.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Whatever the artist's philosophical or political views are, I think Hangars Liquides is a beautiful city worth keeping on the grid for both artistic and historical reasons.

The Indiegogo fund has reached it's halfway point before August 1st, so the owners will be able to pay the first $ 3000 to keep the city going for now, but they still need the rest to keep it alive in SL for the coming year.  I urge everyone reading this thread to go see the sim for yourself ASAP, then decide if you are willing to contribute to keep it around. 

Edited by Persephone Emerald
grammatical correction
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/27/2019 at 6:30 PM, Qie Niangao said:

If we want to leave this whole incident behind and talk in the abstract about the way ambiguity -- even unappreciated by the artist -- can enrich the experience of art in the observer, I could be down with that. Maybe Maddy has a TED talk for that, ready to hand.

Not TED, but...

https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-appeal-of-ambiguity-in-art

Ambiguity in many things appeals to me, as do incongruity and juxtaposition. Long ago I read about FMRI studies done on people listening to music. Tunes with constant variation in beat patterns (Stevie Wonder’s “Superstition” was a prime example) elicited more brain activity and were deemed more pleasing than tunes witch carried the same beat throughout. The unexpected keeps us engaged, as does ambiguity. 

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

tunes witch

Which tunes witch? Don't they all look the same?

 

...sets self on fire

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Are you saying we should not trust what she claims as her intent?

nope, I am not saying that 😊

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Not TED, but...

https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-appeal-of-ambiguity-in-art

Ambiguity in many things appeals to me, as do incongruity and juxtaposition. Long ago I read about FMRI studies done on people listening to music. Tunes with constant variation in beat patterns (Stevie Wonder’s “Superstition” was a prime example) elicited more brain activity and were deemed more pleasing than tunes witch carried the same beat throughout. The unexpected keeps us engaged, as does ambiguity. 

for some reason this popped into my mind

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/pineapple-art-exhibition-scotland-robert-gordon-university-ruairi-gray-lloyd-jack-a7723516.html

(mind you if they had been really edgy they'd have put it on a pizza)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, kiramanell said:
19 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I agree, as artists what we want is for our audience to view the work and be free to develop their own interpretations, hopefully to learn from it, perhaps change due to the experience, or at the very least be affected by it.

But...what if as an artist I developed a project to demonstrate the horrors of child abuse in order to help society develop more empathy and hopefully be more inclined to help. And so I created depictions of abused children neglected and beaten, abusers lurking over them with weapons ready to strike. OK, good, it's an artistic presentation designed for a purpose.
But what if a viewer of this art came to my project and declared "oh my God that Luna Bliss likes child abuse, and I can tell this from this ironic quote she has in the project saying that children should be loved, yeah she's got to be mocking the situation with such a quote amidst so much horror".  Would I become defensive and insist that I am NOT THAT, that I am not advocating or making light of child abuse?  Of course, who would not try to defend themselves in such an instance.
THIS, is what the creator of HL did -- depicted a monstrous, dystopian city where freedom is lost in order to demonstrate where we could be heading if we don't choose love instead, encapsulating the desire to focus on love in a protected, 'happy' spot in the city, providing the contrast.

And so this specious argument that is focusing on the fact that we don't control how other people interpret our art, is BESIDE THE POINT.

I'm beginning to see that so many have not experienced what is known as "political art" before.

^^ I think that was an incredibly good summary of what happened! Still would have worded things differently -- knowing how forums work and all, LOL --- but I can fully see where she was coming from.

But that just is not what happened, and as much as I want to leave the past of this thread behind, the part that got us in so much trouble and confused so many people into saying unpleasant things is stated again here, with this:

Quote

But what if a viewer of this art came to my project and declared "oh my God that Luna Bliss likes child abuse, and I can tell this from this ironic quote she has in the project saying that children should be loved, yeah she's got to be mocking the situation with such a quote amidst so much horror". 

Nobody came to the project and said anything like that. The creator herself declared that the only way the quote could have been intended ironically was something horrid like that. I'm not proposing to relitigate the thread, some undead Groundhog Day Redux, and it frankly wasn't that good a show the first time 'round. But if others are thinking of providing an executive summary of this trainwreck, please get this part right, because it matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qie, you can take anything in isolation, remove it from context, and make a case that it means just about anything. An art project, and most importantly political art, needs to be viewed as a whole -- context needs to be considered.
And so we have to consider all the other elements of the project, as well as the historical context Anne Frank was living in, while we consider the meaning of the Anne Frank quote.
While your alternate interpretations of Anne Frank's quote might be interesting, and even true in some contexts, if you haven't juxtaposed the quote onto the rest of the actual project and so view the art as a whole it is merely spinning off into pedantic bliss, so separated from the whole that meaning is lost.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Imaze Rhiano said:

This thread needs executive summary.

Do you mean “summary execution”?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Qie, you can take anything in isolation, remove it from context, and make a case that it means just about anything. An art project, and most importantly political art, needs to be viewed as a whole -- context needs to be considered.
And so we have to consider all the other elements of the project, as well as the historical context Anne Frank was living in, while we consider the meaning of the Anne Frank quote.
While your alternate interpretations of Anne Frank's quote might be interesting, and even true in some contexts, if you haven't juxtaposed the quote onto the rest of the actual project and so view the art as a whole it is merely spinning off into pedantic bliss, so separated from the whole that meaning is lost.

We can have whatever discussions we want about what say any artist should have over the interpretation of their art, political or otherwise. You can decide they're pedantic, and then we can have more pedantic discussions about whether or not those pedantic discussions are valid. All fine.

The problem arises when the story is told inaccurately, introducing events that never happened, making it seem as if folks in this thread were attacking the creator, and thus spurring supporters to leap to her defense. There was never anything to defend against, and repeating the same errant details keeps pushing us back into the fray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You just don't understand political art, Qie.

* You are the one telling the story inaccurately because you continue to focus on one aspect without taking into consideration the entirety of the project as you examine the Anne Frank quote.

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Waits for a picture of a decapitated goat.

Dilettante, don't you know goats are best executed by staring at them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

You just don't understand political art, Qie.

OFFS

Seriously?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...