guruilla » Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:46 pm wrote:slomo » Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:23 pm wrote:For the record, I don't have a problem per se with sex or the occult in art. The issue is whether the art is meant to enlighten or darken our soul, understanding that catharsis can be a means for enlightenment. Nudity and sex as a subject of art can help draw us out into our spirit (and down into our body in an integrating way), or it can be pruriently used to divide our spirit from our body. Occult themes can be used manipulatively to imprison us, or else inspirationally to liberate us. For example, I would even categorize Crowley's Thoth Tarot as inspirational art, because the (obviously) occult-based themes are supposed to spiritually inspire the practitioner.
Many individual cases are ambiguous, and almost all of it is subjective, so it's not like I would support some kind of government-run Art Review Board. But I think when you see a concentration of art that seems to darken the soul, it's not wrong to call it out for (what you think) it is. In the case of de Dionyso, I actually kind of like a lot of his work, although I do think it is occult-themed, and it is more the juxtaposition of his art with of the other CPP-related stuff that makes me hard to accept it as uplifting. Could just be my own biases, tho.
To borrow a famous quote ...
I don't know how to define Art, but I know it when I see it!
@slomo/PufPuf93:
I like Dionyso's artistic style too, and some of the pics.
I also like(d) Woody Allen movies and Leonard Cohen songs and the first couple of
Bourne movies even tho I knew they were CIA-propaganda. At what point does knowledge of what's behind the "art" or inside the artist start to become more important than one's enjoyment of it? I haven't stopped enjoying movies & TV shows (just rewatched
True Detective season one, enjoyed it a lot), but I've become a lot more consciously on the look out for manipulations, dissembling, concealment, cultural toxins which the work itself may be just a delivery device for, like cigarettes & nicotine. I respect the artistic process as much as I ever did, if and when it's clean; I respect artists & artists less and less though, because art, like therapy, can only be as good or as true as the human being doing it is willing to go all the way into their own unconscious and let what's there be seen.
Most art, including good art, is the opposite of this, IMO, more like glamor magic, a form of self-packaging for social acceptance, favors, admiration, or self-empowerment, and IMO that's what makes it usable by capitalism and useful as delivery device for the controlling narratives & values.
I trust someone like Kafka more because he wanted all his works burned on his death. I suspect the truest artists are the ones we never hear about.
It's not that I think every single popular or celebrated artwork or artist is part of the plot to culturally debase us; but I do know it'd be both naive and
hubris to think I could discern the difference based only on my aesthetic responses.