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 -
I like the color scheme. I like how strangely ambiguous the image is: the figure floating in a strange artificial space (or maybe a "space" that's not-actually-a-space), he looks like he's looking at something, expectant about something, but we don't know what. The image feels "compact" in a way that's oddly comforting.
I've long said, "the nature of art is ambiguity." I don't know how true it is, but it's close enough for a quip. I've also said, everything you say is art, is art, but I get to say which art is good art, and which is bad art.
When I saw this, I was struck by it. It's striking, yes, in a grotesque way. Here are the things I find notable. First, the eyes merging with forehead, the nose and mouth and teeth, and the neck/jaw outline are all unsettling and, I think, intentionally so. The body is some sort of bird, especially the lower half, which gives it the appearance of a chicken-man. I almost thought it was a play on a hairless biped, "behold, a man!" Three toes plus a talon, and the tail-skirt shape, enhance this appearance.
I like the hair, and it's here that I see the titular subject: angels. It looks like angel hair might look. It looks like rolled scrolls and the curlicues of roman statuary. I also quite like the hands, and the lines that reach from index finger downward, but then the question. What am I looking at? Arm? Wing? Stole? Shawl? The detail about the neck also draws my attention. What is that nexus of lines from which a necklace hangs? Is that a fishing hook at its end?
I see what you mean about the compactness, and I can appreciate it. It can certainly be part of the striking first impression, and to cross mediums, I liken it to reading Roger Zelanzy's Amber, whose prose is sparse and direct, when compared to, say, Tolkein.
Overall, way better than some, not as good as most. Certainly not my favorite grotesque painting.
There's something different, I will say, about seeing a work of art in the flesh. Have you ever seen the original, or are you enamored with the pictures of it you've seen? Here is another place where the compactness of a work benefits it, as not everything compares well on screens.
Nice comment, it certainly has driven discussion.
More options
Context Copy link
I appreciate you taking the time to go over that. When people say they like a piece of art, I usually don't care why they like it, so much as they can say why they like it, if that makes sense
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link