rigorousintuition.ca

...in the Total Nazification of America.

Goddamn. It was touch and go through a lot of the Bush regime, but I honestly never thought I'd live to see this day.

For those unaware of the parallels to what's been going on here, on Reddit, 4chan, InfoWars, Drudge and elsewhere over the last few days...

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/29/317034126 ... modern-art

Think of this as you peruse the conspiracy-oriented web from this day forth. I don't think we can unsqueeze this lemon.

Sincerely,
yer old pal Jerky

Ah, those ancient thoughts in airtight museum cases. A mutually beneficial arrangement.

You know what would be fun? Reconsructing a Schwitters Merzbau, and then dropping a bomb on it.

I think someone has the copyright for Merzbau reconstruction though. So it would be against the intellectual law.

I like this, from an article posted by conniption in the 'War A Africa' thread:

"One day, I was sitting with a friend and with a local filmmaker in a cafe, discussing the possibility of my returning here and making a documentary film. The filmmaker was offering to drive me to Port Sudan if I come back, even to arrange my visa and all the necessary permits.

At one point, we began discussing my latest novel “Aurora”. He asked about the plot. I told him that the book is about the European cultural institutions, which are funding young artists and thinkers in almost all developing countries, then using the arts and ‘culture’ as a vehicle for spreading capitalist and pro-Western propaganda, silencing almost all rebellious voices.

At first interested, the filmmaker became gradually very edgy, and towards the end of my explanation, he apologized and ran away from the café, faster than the speed of light. I never heard from him again.

You hit the nail on its head,” my friend began laughing, right after he vanished. “He is funded by all those organizations that you mentioned. You scared him witless.”"

I'm torn on this subject. I don't think art should be censored, not at all, and I don't think most people should be judged for their taste in art. However, some art IS shocking and even disturbing, and sometimes it is not appropriate for people in public positions to display that sort of interest. For instance, I'm a school teacher, so would it be appropriate to put up some of H.R. Geiger's cyber-erotic art on my public Facebook profile? No, probably not. What if I'd put up some of the controversial art that Podesta has collected . . . such as the ones with kids in underwear holding their arms behind their backs, looking very abused and very ashamed?

No, it would be pretty fucking creepy if a school teacher collected that kind of work. Now, Podesta is not a school teacher, but neither is Obama. Would it be appropriate for Obama to hang a Biljana Djurdjevic painting in the White House?

Here are some of the Biljana Djurdjevic paintings in question, but let it be clear that we do not know which of her paintings he has collected. She does have a few less controversial pieces in her body of work, but some of it is quite shocking:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BPP_mTXulME/U2BZUGs8rpI/AAAAAAAA7jE/1HSboPLKka4/s1600/Biljana+Djurdjevic_Serbia_paintings_artodyssey+(6
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cAIvzrMuZpI/U2BZf3OIe_I/AAAAAAAA7j0/oFsj4CocsMc/s1600/Biljana+Djurdjevic_Serbia_paintings_artodyssey+(3

Now, my question about this artist is what is the context of these paintings? Is she promoting child abuse, or is she expressing some abuse from her own past? Is she advocating for abused children or promoting it? There's a fine line. Maybe they aren't about abuse, at all, and are more symbolic of some personal or social conflict. As another poster brought up in the other thread, the motivation and context of the artist can be different from the collector.

Is the collector supporting an artist who he/she believes is making important, but controversial work? Is their collection based on personal taste and interest, or is it a snooty attempt to be seen as having taste? I, personally, am not a big fan of Van Gough, but I recognize his importance to art and his specific genius and I'd be proud to hang an original Van Gough on my wall . . . even if the piece didn't excite or interest me, personally.

Or is the collection a mirror in which the collector sees his deepest desires? I suppose we'd have to look at a whole collection to really see.

I'm partly with Jerky on this one because I think it's dangerous territory when people's taste in art is used as a means to prosecute them or find them unqualified, dangerous, or unbalanced. That gets scary. However, on the flip side, when public figures start collecting art with bare-dressed kids in positions of shame and abuse . . . it's, at the least, inappropriate.

Could you please re-phrase or elaborate upon your response, Dada?

Jerky

Is she promoting child abuse? That's absurd.

Luther Blissett » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:10 am wrote:Is she promoting child abuse? That's absurd.

This isnt about the artist. It's about Podesta.

I'm with Fourth Base on this: is this RI?

We seem to have an apologist not only for someone who gets off on "art" of abused kids, but thinks having sex with 14 year old girls is fine as long as they're hot models.

"Could you please re-phrase or elaborate upon your response, Dada?"

I will try.

I'm critiquing 'art' in general.

I think art is overrated. It's a commodity, it's propaganda. It's a scam, it's therapy. It's a creative act, it's an industry. Some of it is pretty, some not. Some can make you think about this or that, some people make a living at writing about it. It's another something to occupy your time with before you die. Nothing wrong with all that. I even like some of it.

Maybe looking at a new medium would help put it in perspective. Video games, as a medium, really really wants to be considered an art form. Let's say it is, for the sake of argument. Some talented people make art in the new medium, others make corporate art. Some create because they love to, others do it to make money. Collectors collect, museums pickle and freeze. A whole industry of journalism, and culture studies forms, like fiefdoms around another art kingdom.

We can also look through this lens in the other direction: Art is like video games, using different mediums. To me, putting art on a high pedestal is no different than putting video games on a high pedestal. People look pretty much the same to me when they do it. I try not to make fun of them.

I'll put it another way; art is like sports for a certain type of person. Football is art for another. Poetry in motion.

Nordic » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:46 am wrote:

Luther Blissett » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:10 am wrote:Is she promoting child abuse? That's absurd.

This isnt about the artist. It's about Podesta.

I'm with Fourth Base on this: is this RI?

We seem to have an apologist not only for someone who gets off on "art" of abused kids, but thinks having sex with 14 year old girls is fine as long as they're hot models.

I was just responding to a rhetorical by Novem5er up there, one which I think was an honest rhetorical. I too am going to keep my eyes on the powers, not those who might try to speak truth to it.

I can't say that I agree with everything you say - some of it, in fact, I find kind of disturbing - but that's probably my own prejudices peeping out. You've definitely got an interesting philosophical perspective going there, I'll give it that!

Thank you for elaborating. It was worth it IMO.

Cheers!
yer old pal Jerky

dada » 06 Nov 2016 16:07 wrote:"Could you please re-phrase or elaborate upon your response, Dada?"

I will try.

I'm critiquing 'art' in general.

I think art is overrated. It's a commodity, it's propaganda. It's a scam, it's therapy. It's a creative act, it's an industry. Some of it is pretty, some not. Some can make you think about this or that, some people make a living at writing about it. It's another something to occupy your time with before you die. Nothing wrong with all that. I even like some of it.

Maybe looking at a new medium would help put it in perspective. Video games, as a medium, really really wants to be considered an art form. Let's say it is, for the sake of argument. Some talented people make art in the new medium, others make corporate art. Some create because they love to, others do it to make money. Collectors collect, museums pickle and freeze. A whole industry of journalism, and culture studies forms, like fiefdoms around another art kingdom.

We can also look through this lens in the other direction: Art is like video games, using different mediums. To me, putting art on a high pedestal is no different than putting video games on a high pedestal. People look pretty much the same to me when they do it. I try not to make fun of them.

I'll put it another way; art is like sports for a certain type of person. Football is art for another. Poetry in motion.

Visual art is also the primary way in which we will communicate with future civilizations, and for that reason I put it on a pedestal. It will outlive our physical bodies and our letters.

I tend to share your view, Luther.

J.

Luther Blissett » Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:10 am wrote:Is she promoting child abuse? That's absurd.

I think it's probably absurd, too. We do not know the context in which she painted those images, which was my point. Artists obviously use symbolic language and, of course, often try to provoke emotional responses from a viewer. What is the context of her painting children in their underwear, lying abandoned in an overgrown field? Or the same children facing a sterile, tiled wall with their hands clasped together behind their backs? She could be expressing the emotions of her own abuse. She could be using symbology. I couldn't find any background on her in English.

But just as an artist creates within their own context, a collector has their own context in which they are attracted to a piece. That context could be good or bad.

I seem to recall Keith Richards got in trouble many years ago for looking into child porn. He defended himself, saying that he was researching the topic as part of the healing process for the abuse that he, himself, suffered when he was younger. As far as I know, the charges were dropped and the public never stigmatized him. I remember the story as an example of that old adage of looking too long into the abyss. Some people have been thrown into the abyss, and maybe crawled out of it, but can't help to look back and try to find some understanding - but that process can also draw them back in.

Novem5er » Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:28 pm wrote:I seem to recall Keith Richards got in trouble many years ago for looking into child porn. He defended himself, saying that he was researching the topic as part of the healing process for the abuse that he, himself, suffered when he was younger. As far as I know, the charges were dropped and the public never stigmatized him.

That was Pete Townsend; Richards can materialize gorgeous models at will.

I have to agree with Jerky 100%. The hysteria about Biljana Djurdjevic would be hair-raising, if it were not so predictable. We already had something like it on RI with the threads about the Superbowl half-time shows, and of course the Miley Cyrus "twerking" nonsense. The question that defines the cultural divide here as well was which was morally worse and more damaging to "children" - Cyrus' MTV show, or "Hannah Montana."

You want to see constant misogyny and contempt for everything human, I invite you to watch 14 seasons of The Apprentice.

What's indicative on this thread is that the same people on this site who claim not to detect the explicit racism bullhorned by Trump on a daily basis, who post incredible see-no-evil in his defense, are suddenly such profound readers of meanings in the art -- when it's time to slam the urban degenerates.

.

Via: http://thethermostatandthegreendragoon. ... jevic.html

Q: Who is your biggest influence, both art and non-art related

A: For me very important is passion for work, of course some of them are more important then others, for sure German philosophy like Friedrich Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Schiller, writers like Kafka, Bulgakov, Bela Hamvas, David Bowie…

Q: How do you dream up with your wacky ideas? What is your creation process?

A:I read a lot, from junky novels to pure art novels, am addicted to TV who works 24 hours per day, I hardly watch but I need to have it in the room, maybe it is compilation of my thoughts that I collect through ordinary day like seeing some old man struggling with his poverty and starting to fade from the face of earth without being seen at all, or seeing another victim of paedophilia for this and other subjects unfortunately I didn’t need any imagination. Just a pure reality.