Jump to content

Does SL Have an Intelligentsia?

Prokofy Neva

By Prokofy Neva,
in General Discussion Forum

 Share
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 663 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 398
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Scylla Rhiadra
Scylla Rhiadra

There are a great many very very bright and thoughtful people in SL, some of whom are using it for some pretty exciting purposes. But if by "intelligentsia" you mean a network of people who engag

Sid Nagy
Sid Nagy

Just read the forums. 😇

Lindal Kidd
Lindal Kidd

Reply: "ANARCHIST!? OMG, I thought it said "Antichrist"!

Posted Images

Scylla Rhiadra

Scylla Rhiadra

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Han Held said:

I don't feel it's a "guidance" role though there is room for that -but rather an interpretive role.

Well, "guidance" is a tricky term -- does a teacher "guide" -- or "enable"? Probably a bit of both. And the teacher should be listening to the students as well.

The examples you've provided seem to sort of undercut this point though: the intelligentsia who adopted and adapted punk, for instance, weren't merely "interpreting" it -- they were deploying it, and in the process changing it and making it something new and equally valuable, if somewhat different. And that re-deployment in turn affected other social, cultural, and intellectual movements and phenomenon.

Unless what you mean by "interpret" is more or less the same as "adapt" and "redeploy"? It's certainly not, in any case, the role of an "observer": it's active rather than passive.

The actual process by which cultural, political, and intellectual change happens is, of course, hugely complicated -- punk didn't just pop out of the heads of the street youth of the 70s, for instance: it couldn't have existed without all that had gone before it, including the work of the intelligentsia. Consider, for instance, the influence of people like William S. Burroughs, Hunter S. Thompson, Patti Smith -- all arguably proto-punk to some degree, and all very much a part of what I'd call "the intelligentsia."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seicher Rae

Seicher Rae

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Han Held said:

I simply mean that I'll bring up references in-game that almost anyone on the forum would understand (agree with is a different thing) but the people I'm talking to will generally react with some variation of "huh, hadn't heard that one". I don't mean necessarily memes but regular discussions ("is sl a game", metaverse *anything* ). A lot of people I hang out with don't know because it has almost nothing to do with them -from their point of view.

Very much agree with and replicate this. It is also true for me, too, and I do, at times hang out in the Forums (which I keep wanting to spell Fourums, which is kinda hilarious).  I find the forums to be useful for getting that wee bit of arcane knowledge that I can apply to my SL, or just a "huh, never knew that, interesting" thing. But this place can get very much in the weeds and it is a weedy echo chamber.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harper Held

Harper Held

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, "guidance" is a tricky term -- does a teacher "guide" -- or "enable"? Probably a bit of both. And the teacher should be listening to the students as well.

The examples you've provided seem to sort of undercut this point though: the intelligentsia who adopted and adapted punk, for instance, weren't merely "interpreting" it -- they were deploying it, and in the process changing it and making it something new and equally valuable, if somewhat different. And that re-deployment in turn affected other social, cultural, and intellectual movements and phenomenon.

Unless what you mean by "interpret" is more or less the same as "adapt" and "redeploy"? It's certainly not, in any case, the role of an "observer": it's active rather than passive.

The actual process by which cultural, political, and intellectual change happens is, of course, hugely complicated -- punk didn't just pop out of the heads of the street youth of the 70s, for instance: it couldn't have existed without all that had gone before it, including the work of the intelligentsia. Consider, for instance, the influence of people like William S. Burroughs, Hunter S. Thompson, Patti Smith -- all arguably proto-punk to some degree, and all very much a part of what I'd call "the intelligentsia."

I meant interpret. A large part (not all of it) of the intellectual part of punk was a reaction to watergate/cold war/economic pressures of the 70's and a disappointment with the hippie movement (or the fact the hippie movement disappated into cocaine-feuled hedonism by that point). Punk and Hip-hop both had explicit roles articulating what their communities were going through.

It would never occur to me to describe Hunter S Thompson as "punk" but he is a great example of what I mean by "interpretive". He went where things were happening and described what he experienced in a new way. An argument could be made for and against Burroughs doing the same thing though obviously adding several levels of obscufation on his experiences!

Everything builds on something else, everything's influenced by something else, so yes, the punks of the 70's actively said "you know, I can relate a lot more to fear and loathing than I can to woodstock because things really suck right now". I think all three of the artists (Thompson, Smith, Burroughs) wrote about their experiences which the 70's artists etc (including Patti Smith, obviously) saw reflecting what was going on.

But they didn't dictate -not as I see it. At least not until the 80's when bands like X and the Dead Kennedys came around.

Edited by Han Held
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seicher Rae

Seicher Rae

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

But the key to the whole thing is back on page 3! You have to read the entire thread to understand!!1!!! You are compelled!!1!!1!!

 

Sadly, I've read the whole thing. :)

 

Well... "read" is over-stating it. When it gets to be the thesis-paper length ponderings, I tend to gloss-over. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scylla Rhiadra

Scylla Rhiadra

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think we'd be safer (in lots of ways) if we kept the discussion immediately SL-related.

So, as a sort of SL analogue to Tom MacDonald, or Rage Against the Machine, or whoever, consider things like in-world exhibitions and events that have an "intellectual" component (whatever that means).

Now, I've done a number of these, but, as I'm a modest, shrinking violet myself, I will instead cite as an example the current installation by Debora Kaz "Invisible Cities -- Fighting Women" (the link takes you to Inara's review of the exhibition). It's a great installation -- really well done from an artistic perspective, and very engaging. But it's not obviously providing "new information" or analysis about its subject (which is violence against women).

What it does do is reframe and recontextualize things we already "know" or that have been said at more length elsewhere in a medium that is both more pleasant to experience than a straight-forward polemic (the ancients called this utile dulci -- sort of "a spoon full of medicine" to make the lesson go down more easily) and "new" precisely because what art endeavours to do is provide new insights through an aesthetic experience. So, you won't get new "data" or information from Kaz's exhibition, but you may walk away with new insights or perspectives on a familiar subject, because that's one of the things that art "does."

I think you can argue that things like Kaz's installation are contributions to public discourse. They are "public humanities" as well as art, because they raise consciousness about issues, they provoke discussion, and they enable new ways of thinking about them. And because they attract a subset of people who are there for the "art" rather than the "issue," they reach out into a broader public.

Now, it's still a small public. I'm not sure how many people actually saw my "Virtual Toxic" exhibit, but based on the size of the crowd at the opening, and the number of pictures I sold, I'd guess a few hundred? Which is great -- but still not the kind of reach that can really impact upon SL's overall culture.

But it's a start. And it's probably more than read my posts here.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Love Zhaoying

Love Zhaoying

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think we'd be safer (in lots of ways) if we kept the discussion immediately SL-related.

So, as a sort of SL analogue to Tom MacDonald, or Rage Against the Machine, or whoever, consider things like in-world exhibitions and events that have an "intellectual" component (whatever that means).

Now, I've done a number of these, but, as I'm a modest, shrinking violet myself, I will instead cite as an example the current installation by Debora Kaz "Invisible Cities -- Fighting Women" (the link takes you to Inara's review of the exhibition). It's a great installation -- really well done from an artistic perspective, and very engaging. But it's not obviously providing "new information" or analysis about its subject (which is violence against women).

What it does do is reframe and recontextualize things we already "know" or that have been said at more length elsewhere in a medium that is both more pleasant to experience than a straight-forward polemic (the ancients called this utile dulci -- sort of "a spoon full of medicine" to make the lesson go down more easily) and "new" precisely because what art endeavours to do is provide new insights through an aesthetic experience. So, you won't get new "data" or information from Kaz's exhibition, but you may walk away with new insights or perspectives on a familiar subject, because that's one of the things that art "does."

I think you can argue that things like Kaz's installation are contributions to public discourse. They are "public humanities" as well as art, because they raise consciousness about issues, they provoke discussion, and they enable new ways of thinking about them. And because they attract a subset of people who are there for the "art" rather than the "issue," they reach out into a broader public.

Now, it's still a small public. I'm not sure how many people actually saw my "Virtual Toxic" exhibit, but based on the size of the crowd at the opening, and the number of pictures I sold, I'd guess a few hundred? Which is great -- but still not the kind of reach that can really impact upon SL's overall culture.

But it's a start. And it's probably more than read my posts here.

Lemme know if you find any intelligentsia in Second Life. Otherwise, Scotty will be glad to beam you up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arielle Popstar

Arielle Popstar

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think we'd be safer (in lots of ways) if we kept the discussion immediately SL-related.

So, as a sort of SL analogue to Tom MacDonald, or Rage Against the Machine, or whoever, consider things like in-world exhibitions and events that have an "intellectual" component (whatever that means).

Now, I've done a number of these, but, as I'm a modest, shrinking violet myself, I will instead cite as an example the current installation by Debora Kaz "Invisible Cities -- Fighting Women" (the link takes you to Inara's review of the exhibition). It's a great installation -- really well done from an artistic perspective, and very engaging. But it's not obviously providing "new information" or analysis about its subject (which is violence against women).

Honestly the difference between my link and yours is a bit of hair splitting. Reading the link to Inara's review of the exhibit struck me as hard hitting as Tom's rendition of the Names track in that both present a different way of perceiving the dynamics between people in such a way that we should be prompted to ask ourselves whether our old way of seeing reality is not off the mark and whether we need fresh eyes on how we interact with each other, whether it is taking offence at the names we call each other or the competition of women against women potentially resulting in a violence against each other, and how it too is instigated and motivated by greater forces then is readily apparent. I was struck by the artist Deborah Kaz's summation when she writes:

WOMEN COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER ATTACK EACH OTHER IN AN IRRATIONAL WAY; AND MOST OF THE TIME, THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF IT, BECAUSE OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE. STRUCTURAL MISOGYNY OCCUPIES THE MINDS OF NOT ONLY MEN, BUT IT IS ALSO PRESENT IN THE FORMATION OF EVERY WOMAN WHO IS BORN OBJECTIFIED. THE DEMAND TO BE DESIRED GROWS AND SEEKS TO BE DESIRED ALL HER LIFE – BY MEN, BUT MOSTLY BY WOMEN; TO BE DESIRED BY ANOTHER WOMAN IS TO HAVE POWER, TO BE BETTER THAN OTHERS IS WANTING TO BE BETTER THAN ANY OTHER WOMAN. https://modemworld.me/2022/08/05/invisible-cities-fighting-women-at-nitroglobus-in-second-life/

Sometimes the stuff that the intelligentsia comes up with, knowingly or not, has a potential boomerang effect.

Quote

What it does do is reframe and recontextualize things we already "know" or that have been said at more length elsewhere in a medium that is both more pleasant to experience than a straight-forward polemic (the ancients called this utile dulci -- sort of "a spoon full of medicine" to make the lesson go down more easily) and "new" precisely because what art endeavours to do is provide new insights through an aesthetic experience. So, you won't get new "data" or information from Kaz's exhibition, but you may walk away with new insights or perspectives on a familiar subject, because that's one of the things that art "does."

So if I understand you correctly, you prefer the subtlety of an artistic display where you could interpret it in such a way that it is more palatable to you and the much smaller audience vs that of the hard hitting and more upfront lyrics in a popular rap song (which is probably not your musical style anyway). Art and its medium however is in the eye of the beholder, which was the intent of my posting the link, not its perceived political or social justice aspect. Luckily the powers that be, were able to be weaponized to take down that which was perceived to be of a lesser or of an even contrarian viewpoint to certain intelligentsia.

Quote

 

I think you can argue that things like Kaz's installation are contributions to public discourse. They are "public humanities" as well as art, because they raise consciousness about issues, they provoke discussion, and they enable new ways of thinking about them. And because they attract a subset of people who are there for the "art" rather than the "issue," they reach out into a broader public.

Now, it's still a small public. I'm not sure how many people actually saw my "Virtual Toxic" exhibit, but based on the size of the crowd at the opening, and the number of pictures I sold, I'd guess a few hundred? Which is great -- but still not the kind of reach that can really impact upon SL's overall culture.

But it's a start. And it's probably more than read my posts here.

 

Yes I'm sure it could be but is it allowed under the new guidelines even if it is about something in S/L and that yet carries a political/social  message relayed to the Forum itself? Is it dependent on who actually posts it rather than the content and its implication on the allowable public/forum discourse? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harper Held

Harper Held

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Yes I'm sure it could be but is it allowed under the new guidelines even if it is about something in S/L

Here's where I remind you, her, and the audience watching at home that the word for a person who creates art was automatically censored from my post earlier in this thread.

Unlike virtualverse one; there be dragons here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Love Zhaoying

Love Zhaoying

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Han Held said:

Here's where I remind you, her, and the audience watching at home that the word for a person who creates art was automatically censored from my post earlier in this thread.

Unlike virtualverse one; there be dragons here.

What about artiste, or even fartiste (which refers originally to a famous flatulence performer)?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 663 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...