https://nitter.net/Deathpopeart/status/1584425245385322497
BTW, all the MSM coverage of the self-immolation left out the minor fact that the guy did it as a climate protest.
Facts! They always leave that out of the headline. “Man dies on Supreme Court steps” is very different than “climate change protestor self-immolates at Supreme Court”
Where are all the stories of climate activists getting arrested while attempting to bypass museum security? How are all of these stunts so successful?
If this is another Just Stop Oil one, then they more or less clear the stunt with museums beforehand. At least in the article I read about the soup or whatever, they had checked to make sure that the painting wouldn't be harmed
It's why I dislike them so much
https://www.energylivenews.com/2022/10/25/granddaughter-of-oil-billionaire-funds-just-stop-oil-protests/
Anything performative is recuperative.
Yeah not to lean too heavily on Chapo Thought, but climate change awareness has been at saturation for a while now. Wrecking stuff to bully elites into compliance won't really work (unlike [redacted]), but at least it would be something they actually don't like.
This is just managing public discourse, and it apparently only takes the barest effort to do
Honestly the best thing which could come out of more destructive actions is changing the split in the non-fringe climate movement orgs from if mild civil disobedience is acceptable as a means to if more radical means are acceptable.
My local group had an internal fight which I swear could have imploded it the first time the mildest of vandalism was suggested.
politics is a performance. leon czolgosz said "I killed the President because he was the enemy of the good people -- the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime. I am sorry I could not see my father." And they gave him an Oscar.
Politics is a performance in general, but there's transformative performance and meaningless. Isolated adventurism in general goes nowhere even if you pull a Czolgosz. Doing something like that might give organisers more of a propaganda win but it won't do the work of organising. Building momentum around movements and ultimately parties is what gives the goal enough weight to resist reaction.
their mash potato scanners were malfunctioning that day
I'm also kinda curious how long it will take before the members of these groups start wondering, "Why is this so easy for us to do?"
This is easy, walk in with lunch in your backpack wearing your tshirt under a hoody. Take off hoody for the protest, throw lunch on painting.
There is no "security" to bypass. You can walk into these places, most of them are even free entry with a suggested donation here in the UK.
2 white people walk into the museum wearing bright orange safety vests
"Huh. I wonder what those guys are up to. Art fans sure look weird nowadays"
Lmao that's what gets me. They're not even doing anything! The cowards aren't even attacking an uncovered painting!
I dont care about paintings in museum tbh, all of them feel dirty, promote exceptionalism and confuse the audience when it's anything modern.
Yeah, I couldn't ever give a fuck. Gurantee there were other just as interesting artists in Van Goghs time that didnt get the same arbitrary appeal he did.
Van Gogh was poor his entire life and wasn't well known at all until well after his death, I get the feeling yall just assumed he was bourgeois because his art is acclaimed now. weird take in context
He would of been on the streets if he wasnt being financially supported by his brother his entire life. He could have gotten a job or something to support himself.
And were saying that there are plenty of artists who were doing interesting stuff at the same time who likely just fell to the wayside of history or are somewhat known but over shadowed by the modern capitalist context where van gogh paintings are millions of dollars for no real reason
Likewise i feel like socialist who support this exceptionalism in the arts are just afraid that their consumer habits and taste are being questioned, my position ameliorates this anxiety because you see tastemakers for what they are and can form your own true understanding of art history/art taste
He would of been on the streets if he wasnt being financially supported by his brother his entire life.
Not to say Van Gogh is of equal value politically (lol), but you could say this about Marx with Engels. It's not a bad thing that an artist was supported, or that because of that his work should be ignored or destroyed (not that you you claimed that necessarily). Ideally, many more could have been in his same situation, but that's not possible to change retroactively.
I don't see why it's "exceptionalism" to want his work to be respected, I wouldn't want much less famous pieces of art tarnished either.
Also, if you want other artists to have had the opportunity for recognition, saying Van Gogh should have "gotten a job or something to support himself" is pretty weird. You don't think there were artists with great potential who could not develop it or produce enough notable work exactly because they needed to work some shitty job instead? That's like the exact opposite prescription for wanting more artists to make great work and get recognition and acclaim. Not sure what you want really
I feel like all people can make great work, ideally it should be normal to make great work to the point that there's no reason to have recognition and acclaim. I believe that that world exists. Ideally art should only have importance to the community around that artist.
I feel like the enshrinement of certain artists works against that idea and also works against the recognition of "lesser" artists because it's not the enshrined artist.
I think this kind of thinking leads to preserving the world as we know it.
I dont think having a job actually prevents great art. I think bad formative education and destroyed communities does.
On that note, why would someone have to work in a mine while someone else would get to make all day long? Doesn't seem fair that one person gets to explore an entire microcosm to its fullest, go on this intense spiritual journey and develop their highly personal craft while one person toils in a mine. I feel like the idea of not having a job and just being an artist doesn't add up to a fair of a society.
Fair enough, but I don't see why art isn't worth preserving just because it's bourgeois. There's cultural and historical value to preserving works by bourgeois types, works made by patronized people under feudalism, and so on.
Right, also many of these famous artists existed only with the financial support of their friends and family and/or died penniless never having actually labored. Like that should be a deafening statement but no.
Or another angle
Dalis father was a lawyer and was a fascist
Stravinsky was born from elites and was a known Mussolini supporter lol, having the opinion that only individuals can create great art puts you in bed with fucking absolute shitheads and rich kids.
The truth is ANYBODY can make GREAT art if given the chance to really pursue it. Museums are kind of against that idea and enshrine a bunch of bulllllshit
The truth is ANYBODY can make GREAT art if given the chance to really pursue it. Museums are kind of against that idea and enshrine a bunch of bulllllshit
You kind of hit on something I've been thinking about, that especially with modern tools there are countless artists today who in terms of sheer technical ability far outstrip any of the old artists still celebrated as geniuses or masters, to the extent that "being good at art" is devalued and most have to make a living the same way as most historical artists: by doing vapid commissions for people with money to throw at them. Maybe the number who could have picked up and worked with the cruder and shittier tools available in the past is much lower, because that requires a different level of dedication and entails learning a different set of skills and techniques, but tools are such a quintessential part of human labor that "ah but what if your tools sucked, like they were the absolute worst, and cost ten times as much despite being awful, where would you be then?" is kind of a copout.
Although that said, I also think old art is something to be preserved for its historical value just because it's a physical chunk of human culture that's survived to the modern day. It has a sort of value to it that's distinct from its literal quality or the ethics of its creation, like how ancient Roman statues and mosaics and the like were all mass-produced trash (mosaics especially: there objectively were good works of art by skilled artisans in that time period, and there are mountains of half-assed standard-template pieces that still got fucked up by being done haphazardly and cheaply by the contractors that put them in) made at the demand of a class of idle slavers in an incredibly vile, chauvinist culture, but the bits and pieces that have survived to this day are still valuable artifacts because they're a glimpse of human history.
also like aren't there reproductions and shit
one copy being damaged is no real loss to the world anyway
I've never understood the self-immolation guy. I guess he just didn't expect the motive to be completely swept under the rug, but that's so very trivially easy for the press to do if you only affect yourself, pretty much regardless of where.
I guess the confusion for me is that he was committed to dying, and it's so easy to get a gun in the US... Like the Congressional baseball game guy, the Bernie bro, he had a better idea of what could even possibly help. Did his best, but his best wasn't enough.
Honestly, is that not kind of the point? People are dying, the planet's fucked, and all the rich can be arsed to talk about is expensive possessions.
