This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Why Boston’s “Embrace Statue” has led me to embrace Western chauvinism
Boston Common is a beautiful park in America’s true historic city. It’s a must see when visiting, and features a number of old monuments. There’s the Soldiers and Sailors monument, the Robert Gould Shaw memorial, and a memorial to the Boston Massacre. All of these are in a beautiful timeless design that the common man appreciates, which is appropriate for the common park of Boston. I wouldn’t say these monuments compare to achievements in European cities, but they are nevertheless noble attempts to celebrate the glories of the nation. As in all great art, the form befits the content, and the statues artfully imitate the gravity of their depicted scene.
Boston liberals decided to plop down a new monument, called “Embrace”, in dedication of MLK Jr — a figure mired in controversy over his support and instructions on raping women and the evidence that he plagiarized both his PhD thesis and his famous dream speech. (If that sentence was strange to read, it’s because I’m trying a new writing style where I introduce progressive heroes like they introduce mine). But the reason I disagree with the statue isn’t because MLK is a cheat or a misogynistic rape-enabler. Were the statue beautiful and heroic, and adequately conveyed the perseverance and dedication and cultural significance of MLK, this post wouldn’t be written. But that didn’t happen. Instead the statue looks like shit.
I mean this literally: it looks like a gigantic turd. The real world angles (not the architectural projections) make it look like a man firmly gripping monumental dung [1]. Some go further, and say it looks like a man gripping a monumental dong — that Boston has erected nothing short of an erection [2] [3] [4]. Surely the view of the common people should take primacy for the statues of the Boston Common, and Twitter is filled with normal people laughing hysterically at this statue.
So why erect something so ugly? The root cause here is the conscious betrayal of the Western legacy. What we see in the Boston Common is what we saw in Obama’s official portrait, with many questioning the artist’s choice of a casual background and hiding semen in his work [5]. The Western legacy and its hundreds of years of artistic development, which made a science out of beautiful monuments, is seen as intrinsically white — which is intrinsically bad. And so the novelty of experimental artists is privileged over the traditional and beautiful forms of art. Many of these artists make bad and gaudy work. The public knows this, but they are chosen anyway by the powers that be, who notoriously have an undeveloped sense of beauty.
And so I embrace western chauvinism. The West is the best, not in all the ways, but in important ones. Their statuary history is surely the best. Because the West is the best, we should privilege the traditional modes of art. Accepting this fact would make the public beautiful again.
Unfortunately, the modernist ugliness you are right to complain about is Western, or at least it came from the West originally, and has now been embraced by decision makers globally.
Traditional architecture, sculpture and painting are beautiful everywhere, regardless of the geographic background. The modernist equivalents are ugly regardless of background.
Compare two recent statues in London. The first is a pile of whipped cream, with a drone, fly and cherry sitting on top. It is designed by a British woman and is an example of contemporary western art.
https://news.sky.com/story/fourth-plinth-whipped-cream-and-fly-sculpture-unveiled-at-trafalgar-square-12038929
The second is a recreation of the ancient Winged Bull statue from Iraq, which was destroyed by ISIS. It was designed by an Iraqi Jew and is a literal recreation of ancient middle eastern art.
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2018/03/28/londons-fourth-plinth-unveiled-michael-rakowitzs-winged-bull-sculpture-made-from-date-syrup-cans
The Winged Bull statue is self-evidently far superior, it is also not western. It is superior because it is traditionalist and not modernist.
The whipped cream statue is not modernist, either. Modernist art is this stuff. And it is worth noting that some people then made the same criticism of that art that you are making re contemporary art, and, as you do, said that this was "real art).
The whipped cream statue is very technically competent. It is also ugly, and meant in a spirit of ugliness. The lamassu statue out of syrup tins may be gaudier and cheekier, and even tackier, but I prefer it. First, I like lamassu. Second, it is colourful and hopeful. There's enough ugliness and rubbing our faces in despair and cultish nihilism. Third, it really does represent something more rooted in the common people. If we're going to be all democratic about our public art, then there are a lot worse out there.
I sincerely doubt that the whipped cream statue was "meant in a spirit of ugliness," whatever that means. It was probably supposed to be some sort of political commentary, or perhaps meant in a spirit of whimsy, or in the spirit of the type of art school sophistry that is so common to artists' statements. You have no actual evidence that it was "meant in a spirit of ugliness" (again, whatever that means), as opposed to simply being, in your view, ugly? And it isn't even that ugly; there are plenty of great works of art that are uglier than that and plenty that depict ugliness, and plenty that are both. Are those "meant in a spirit of ugliness"? And, if so, perhaps that is not a bad thing.
From your first link (emphasis added):
Yes, I think that is the very definition of "a spirit of ugliness".
Then I really have no idea what "meant in a spirit of ugliness" means. All art that is produced by the stereotypical "tortured artist"? All art that some Freudian can impose the standard Freudian interpretation on? That is pretty much all art.
And, btw, the key phrase in OP's claim is not "spirit of ugliness" but rather "meant."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link