If you want an excellent example of this in practice just look at the state of modern corporate entertainment. You can rip off and reboot all the intellectual properties you want, dump as much money into it as possible, update it for “broad appeal”, have mass media shill it for hours on end, and throw in a heavy handed political message to ensure you cannot be criticized by the “right” people. What you cannot do is force people to spend money on poorly written garbage they have no interest in. Amazon’s half a billon dollar Lord of the Rings dumpster fire is a hilarious example of this in action.
My wife and I dro
pped our Netflix subscription of a decade more than a year ago. House-sitting our daughter’s house for several weeks we had the opportunity to sample what we’ve been missing. Not much, I’m afraid. We usually apply the ten minute test: when tempted to bail out earlier we’d hold on that long because some movies take that long to see signs it might be interesting. It was brutal. Some evenings we’d have to go through a dozen to find something remotely watchable. Other evenings we’d end up reading. It seems like they’re only making about half a dozen different movies now. The actors all look the same, act the same, think the same, have sex the same ways (who likes to stand up against a wall and have sex? Or on a kitchen counter? Really? When there’s furniture and beds ten feet away?) Most of the white nonstar males are evil or stupid.The women all went to Kung Fu ninja school. The only positive males are ethnic, usually old black men with white beards. And what’s with all the food samurai movies? Is that what heros have become now? Food prep artists? Food warriors? Don’t look, Achilles. We amuse ourselves by predicting plot outcomes but it’s way too easy. No challenge. If Netflix wanted an auto rating system, a good one would be the inverse of the percentage of it the members sat through before turning it off.
I’m exaggerating, of course. But not by much. The worthwhile movies we do find are almost always subtitled foreign movies (can’t stand dubbing). Or the rare Indie.
Funnily enough, having ditched my tv licence 15 years ago and never having subscribed to Netflix, I had the identical experience house-sitting for my daughter a few months ago.
I have seen the same with books today. They all seem to be written by people who mastered fifth grade English and are more worried about social justice issues than about real real life lived by flawed people who are actually redeemable. Music has also become a lot less complex. No wonder AI can create music and essays as good as a real human—we have dumbed it all down so almost anyone can do it.
I have seen the same with books today. They all seem to be written by people who mastered fifth grade English and are more worried about social justice issues than about real real life lived by flawed people who are actually redeemable. Music has also become a lot less complex. No wonder AI can create music and essays as good as a real human—we have dumbed it all down so almost anyone can do it.
Funnily enough, I used tyo play this game with a series called Cold Case; sad, I know. I used to watch the first 15 minutes, when all the characters were introduced, and then fast forward to the end to find out who done it. Before I went to the end I would make my guess as to who the bad guy was, and rarely was I wrong. I had a simple formula – if it were a choice between a man or a woman, it was the man; if it were a black/white choice it was a white person, old/young it was the old person; gay/straight it was straight man; rich/poor it was rich; northener/southener it was the southerner (this was a US programme) – you see where I’m ging here. Occasionally I was surprised, but I should have been surprised more often.
Wow. Great system. What if it’s between a priest and a teacher? I always guess and am seldom wrong but have used a different method. The characters the introduce you to and focus on early are always red herrings. In the case of long series I count the episodes. It will be the character they come back to in the beginning of the last episode but who was only in the background earlier.
Wow. Great system. What if it’s between a priest and a teacher? I always guess and am seldom wrong but have used a different method. The characters the introduce you to and focus on early are always red herrings. In the case of long series I count the episodes. It will be the character they come back to in the beginning of the last episode but who was only in the background earlier.
I wholly agree with your perspective on Netflix (and Amazon Prime … and Disney … and … and … YAAAAAAWN!). The amount of formulaic, woke crap that is churned out is incredible. Inevitably, one becomes ‘acclimatised’ to being drenched in this egregious, insidious process that filters daily, hourly through our existence. Occasionally there are some good movies and series (many of the foreign language series (Turkish. Spanish, South American, Indian, etc.) that are really good and refreshingly devoid (mainly) of the relentless brainwashing ordure that is shovelled on us by the English language production houses. If one views films from 2010 backwards, one is struck by the general absence of woke content – and by how much better the quality of acting and production was in that bygone era. Coerced compliance with the modern orthodoxy, coupled with national electorates that are helpless in the face of this ‘revolution’ because political leadership has failed, has all but destroyed originality and free expression, not to mention quality.
We stopped watching terrestrial TV in the UK (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) years ago because the content, whether documentary or fictional, was so blatantly propagandistic. Even something as seemingly innocuous as BBC Radio 3, which used to focus on classical music, is now a numbing destruction, deconstruction and ‘decolonisation’ of several hundred years of wonderful music, to be replaced with joyless lectures about white supremacy and privilege; and a woke parade of ‘lost’ Black and Female composers who’ve been the ‘victims’ over the centuries of racist or misogynist oppression. Pale, Male and Stale is out. The canon is being detoxified; historical patriarchy is replaced with vicious matriarchy, and various other ‘modern’ perspectives.
No nook or cranny of our lives escapes this horrendous, remorseless onslaught.
Funnily enough, having ditched my tv licence 15 years ago and never having subscribed to Netflix, I had the identical experience house-sitting for my daughter a few months ago.
Funnily enough, I used tyo play this game with a series called Cold Case; sad, I know. I used to watch the first 15 minutes, when all the characters were introduced, and then fast forward to the end to find out who done it. Before I went to the end I would make my guess as to who the bad guy was, and rarely was I wrong. I had a simple formula – if it were a choice between a man or a woman, it was the man; if it were a black/white choice it was a white person, old/young it was the old person; gay/straight it was straight man; rich/poor it was rich; northener/southener it was the southerner (this was a US programme) – you see where I’m ging here. Occasionally I was surprised, but I should have been surprised more often.
I wholly agree with your perspective on Netflix (and Amazon Prime … and Disney … and … and … YAAAAAAWN!). The amount of formulaic, woke crap that is churned out is incredible. Inevitably, one becomes ‘acclimatised’ to being drenched in this egregious, insidious process that filters daily, hourly through our existence. Occasionally there are some good movies and series (many of the foreign language series (Turkish. Spanish, South American, Indian, etc.) that are really good and refreshingly devoid (mainly) of the relentless brainwashing ordure that is shovelled on us by the English language production houses. If one views films from 2010 backwards, one is struck by the general absence of woke content – and by how much better the quality of acting and production was in that bygone era. Coerced compliance with the modern orthodoxy, coupled with national electorates that are helpless in the face of this ‘revolution’ because political leadership has failed, has all but destroyed originality and free expression, not to mention quality.
We stopped watching terrestrial TV in the UK (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) years ago because the content, whether documentary or fictional, was so blatantly propagandistic. Even something as seemingly innocuous as BBC Radio 3, which used to focus on classical music, is now a numbing destruction, deconstruction and ‘decolonisation’ of several hundred years of wonderful music, to be replaced with joyless lectures about white supremacy and privilege; and a woke parade of ‘lost’ Black and Female composers who’ve been the ‘victims’ over the centuries of racist or misogynist oppression. Pale, Male and Stale is out. The canon is being detoxified; historical patriarchy is replaced with vicious matriarchy, and various other ‘modern’ perspectives.
No nook or cranny of our lives escapes this horrendous, remorseless onslaught.
I watched less than five minutes of it before I had to switch it off. It was so bad it made me cringe. Rings of Power was written and produced by people who find Tolkien problematic.
It’s a very strange phenomena. Spend vast sums of money on licenses for beloved intellectual properties with huge built in audiences only for every creative decision seemingly made to attract people who are not fans of the IP in the first place while simultaneously pushing the original fans away.
If it’s not deliberate, it’s the most incompetent business decision an entertainment company could make.
Apparently, such companies rely on ‘hate-watching’ – fans of an IP who watch a series based on it only to complain about it. Much of the news media is also guilty of this: https://strixus.com/entry/outrage-culture-how-the-media-gets-your-attention-1875
It is a very cynical ploy used to trigger people and circumnavigate their rational thinking mechanisms.
Completely agree. Contrast the LOTR dumpster fire with the success of HBO’s Game of Thrones and you see what success can come if you stick to the storyline more or less. That is until you run out of books……
Apparently, such companies rely on ‘hate-watching’ – fans of an IP who watch a series based on it only to complain about it. Much of the news media is also guilty of this: https://strixus.com/entry/outrage-culture-how-the-media-gets-your-attention-1875
It is a very cynical ploy used to trigger people and circumnavigate their rational thinking mechanisms.
Completely agree. Contrast the LOTR dumpster fire with the success of HBO’s Game of Thrones and you see what success can come if you stick to the storyline more or less. That is until you run out of books……
I cancelled Netflix 2 years ago when every program became a tiresome and predictable woke lecture.
In a futile gesture I recently even cancelled Amazon Prime out of disgust for their desecration of Tolkien and explicit hatred of his fans. We’ll see if I can live without it!
I’m beyond fed up with giant corporations that actively despise half their own customers. Many are effective monopolies like Amazon. All seem captured by their employees’ ideologies, and a few activists. There is obviously an enormous market for quality non-woke entertainment, yet every one of these companies would rather lose money than risk offending the woke commissars.
My take on this is that ‘Wokeness’ is the ideology of spoilt rich kids and now that they’re graduating college they’re able to use their parents’ networks to leverage themselves into high-end corporate jobs. As such they’re in a position to exert undue influence on their employers who are perhaps too timid to stand up to them for fear of being called out as a phobe of some kind.
Like you I’m surprised that no-one has cottoned to this and is prepared to strike out on their own to make dedicated non-woke entertainment, but I think celebrities and entertainers are in the same boat too: too scared to stand up to the orthodoxy in case they lose Twitter likes.
My take on this is that ‘Wokeness’ is the ideology of spoilt rich kids and now that they’re graduating college they’re able to use their parents’ networks to leverage themselves into high-end corporate jobs. As such they’re in a position to exert undue influence on their employers who are perhaps too timid to stand up to them for fear of being called out as a phobe of some kind.
Like you I’m surprised that no-one has cottoned to this and is prepared to strike out on their own to make dedicated non-woke entertainment, but I think celebrities and entertainers are in the same boat too: too scared to stand up to the orthodoxy in case they lose Twitter likes.
It’s a very strange phenomena. Spend vast sums of money on licenses for beloved intellectual properties with huge built in audiences only for every creative decision seemingly made to attract people who are not fans of the IP in the first place while simultaneously pushing the original fans away.
If it’s not deliberate, it’s the most incompetent business decision an entertainment company could make.
I cancelled Netflix 2 years ago when every program became a tiresome and predictable woke lecture.
In a futile gesture I recently even cancelled Amazon Prime out of disgust for their desecration of Tolkien and explicit hatred of his fans. We’ll see if I can live without it!
I’m beyond fed up with giant corporations that actively despise half their own customers. Many are effective monopolies like Amazon. All seem captured by their employees’ ideologies, and a few activists. There is obviously an enormous market for quality non-woke entertainment, yet every one of these companies would rather lose money than risk offending the woke commissars.
It’s interesting to see the reaction to Velma. It appears this practice may finally have jumped the shark since even the rather small demographic it was aimed at also hate it.
Apparently, a cynical, post-modern deconstruction of Scooby Doo aimed at a “modern audience” was wanted by pretty much no one if its 3% positive reviews are anything to go by.
Velma was Mrs Grayle. Moose Malloy was desperate to find her in Farewell My Lovely. Velma also appeared in High Sierra. Bogart kept bumping into characters called Velma. Both films worth watching.
Velma was Mrs Grayle. Moose Malloy was desperate to find her in Farewell My Lovely. Velma also appeared in High Sierra. Bogart kept bumping into characters called Velma. Both films worth watching.
The Rings of Power has many failings but it is worthy of taking it seriously beyond attaching criticism to it through the lens of “it’s from Amazon” and the casting choices, which have become attached to the woke narrative. Like the RSC some of the players in the show that do not come from the original ethnicity of the characters are very good.
Mr. Tolkien never wrote more than a few pages about the events of the second age but there are some interesting themes worthy of exploration rather than for instance using the rights to do an origin, Aragorn story, which was considered.
1) This is a time when the men of the three houses have been granted the Land of the Star. Initially, their lives are enriched by the powers but they come to resent them and their own mortality. It’s worth telling that story as a study of, almost Paradise.
2) It is also an opportunity to consider the Dwarf’s lust for treasure in a much more adult way than in the Hobbit Book.
3) We also find the Elves who remain in middle earth trying to find their way perhaps in the professor’s mind, a reflection of the ruling class after the great war. They are full of regret for their actions in the first age and yet attempt to harness the memories of the blessed realm through the creation of powerful rings which echo the capturing of the essence of the two trees in the Silmarils.
In to this a possibly repentant Sauron, who is still incarnate, strides capable of dissembling.
The producers of the show have shown both their enormous love of Tolkien in many ways visuals, text, and behavior but also their lack of experience in running such a massive undertaking with modern dialogue and a lack of momentum in the middle sections, relying too heavily on mystery such as the Harfoot and Stranger.
Their biggest dilemma and one the gatekeeper Simon Tolkien dealt directly with them on in a positive manner, is the story begins at the end of the first age but they are unable to use the material from the Silmarillion as a perfect foundation.
As a result, the show begins rather like a builder who has had to put a false floor into an existing property over a very fine and beautiful existing one. So if you found the first few moments jarring, as I did, that is why. It is not out of a lack of respect it is out of the necessity of copyright restrictions.
It is far from perfect but as they gain experience I expect the show to improve there is certainly a genuine desire to do so.
The moment with the paper ship of Galadriel’s that the other children destroyed was a beautiful echo of the burning of the ships of the Teleri at Losgar and when Galadriel incredulously is left to swim back to Middle Earth she is given encouragement by the site of the Valacirca so yes it is a mixture but I am content as a fan of 57 years to make the journey.
I agree with your three themes about what makes the second age an interesting one, but I disagree that the show attempts to actually demonstrate them:
The Numenorean’s jealous of elven immortality is interesting, so why did the show decide to volte face and rather make it an allegory of immigration policy?
Additionally, since the decision to compress the timeline, it also removes one of the more interesting cinematic juxtapositions of ageing and dying men vs the immortal elves.
The timeline compression was a huge mistake and one that Amazon and The Tolkien estate made together. This has created a complete rewrite of Galadriel’s and Elrond’s character. Galadriel should be married and probably have already given birth to Celebrian.
This is to say nothing of her becoming a genocidal maniac with unsurpassed hatred of Sauron (a hatred she should only bear for Faenor).
I just cannot agree about decisions coming from respect. They borne from hubris. Mordor wasn’t a verdant land, it was already a desolation, but they chose to make it a pleasant land so that Mordor was constructed on their watch. They’ve admitted that.
I agree with your three themes about what makes the second age an interesting one, but I disagree that the show attempts to actually demonstrate them:
The Numenorean’s jealous of elven immortality is interesting, so why did the show decide to volte face and rather make it an allegory of immigration policy?
Additionally, since the decision to compress the timeline, it also removes one of the more interesting cinematic juxtapositions of ageing and dying men vs the immortal elves.
The timeline compression was a huge mistake and one that Amazon and The Tolkien estate made together. This has created a complete rewrite of Galadriel’s and Elrond’s character. Galadriel should be married and probably have already given birth to Celebrian.
This is to say nothing of her becoming a genocidal maniac with unsurpassed hatred of Sauron (a hatred she should only bear for Faenor).
I just cannot agree about decisions coming from respect. They borne from hubris. Mordor wasn’t a verdant land, it was already a desolation, but they chose to make it a pleasant land so that Mordor was constructed on their watch. They’ve admitted that.
My wife and I dro
pped our Netflix subscription of a decade more than a year ago. House-sitting our daughter’s house for several weeks we had the opportunity to sample what we’ve been missing. Not much, I’m afraid. We usually apply the ten minute test: when tempted to bail out earlier we’d hold on that long because some movies take that long to see signs it might be interesting. It was brutal. Some evenings we’d have to go through a dozen to find something remotely watchable. Other evenings we’d end up reading. It seems like they’re only making about half a dozen different movies now. The actors all look the same, act the same, think the same, have sex the same ways (who likes to stand up against a wall and have sex? Or on a kitchen counter? Really? When there’s furniture and beds ten feet away?) Most of the white nonstar males are evil or stupid.The women all went to Kung Fu ninja school. The only positive males are ethnic, usually old black men with white beards. And what’s with all the food samurai movies? Is that what heros have become now? Food prep artists? Food warriors? Don’t look, Achilles. We amuse ourselves by predicting plot outcomes but it’s way too easy. No challenge. If Netflix wanted an auto rating system, a good one would be the inverse of the percentage of it the members sat through before turning it off.
I’m exaggerating, of course. But not by much. The worthwhile movies we do find are almost always subtitled foreign movies (can’t stand dubbing). Or the rare Indie.
I watched less than five minutes of it before I had to switch it off. It was so bad it made me cringe. Rings of Power was written and produced by people who find Tolkien problematic.
It’s interesting to see the reaction to Velma. It appears this practice may finally have jumped the shark since even the rather small demographic it was aimed at also hate it.
Apparently, a cynical, post-modern deconstruction of Scooby Doo aimed at a “modern audience” was wanted by pretty much no one if its 3% positive reviews are anything to go by.
The Rings of Power has many failings but it is worthy of taking it seriously beyond attaching criticism to it through the lens of “it’s from Amazon” and the casting choices, which have become attached to the woke narrative. Like the RSC some of the players in the show that do not come from the original ethnicity of the characters are very good.
Mr. Tolkien never wrote more than a few pages about the events of the second age but there are some interesting themes worthy of exploration rather than for instance using the rights to do an origin, Aragorn story, which was considered.
1) This is a time when the men of the three houses have been granted the Land of the Star. Initially, their lives are enriched by the powers but they come to resent them and their own mortality. It’s worth telling that story as a study of, almost Paradise.
2) It is also an opportunity to consider the Dwarf’s lust for treasure in a much more adult way than in the Hobbit Book.
3) We also find the Elves who remain in middle earth trying to find their way perhaps in the professor’s mind, a reflection of the ruling class after the great war. They are full of regret for their actions in the first age and yet attempt to harness the memories of the blessed realm through the creation of powerful rings which echo the capturing of the essence of the two trees in the Silmarils.
In to this a possibly repentant Sauron, who is still incarnate, strides capable of dissembling.
The producers of the show have shown both their enormous love of Tolkien in many ways visuals, text, and behavior but also their lack of experience in running such a massive undertaking with modern dialogue and a lack of momentum in the middle sections, relying too heavily on mystery such as the Harfoot and Stranger.
Their biggest dilemma and one the gatekeeper Simon Tolkien dealt directly with them on in a positive manner, is the story begins at the end of the first age but they are unable to use the material from the Silmarillion as a perfect foundation.
As a result, the show begins rather like a builder who has had to put a false floor into an existing property over a very fine and beautiful existing one. So if you found the first few moments jarring, as I did, that is why. It is not out of a lack of respect it is out of the necessity of copyright restrictions.
It is far from perfect but as they gain experience I expect the show to improve there is certainly a genuine desire to do so.
The moment with the paper ship of Galadriel’s that the other children destroyed was a beautiful echo of the burning of the ships of the Teleri at Losgar and when Galadriel incredulously is left to swim back to Middle Earth she is given encouragement by the site of the Valacirca so yes it is a mixture but I am content as a fan of 57 years to make the journey.
Last edited 1 year ago by Michelle Johnston
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
If you want an excellent example of this in practice just look at the state of modern corporate entertainment. You can rip off and reboot all the intellectual properties you want, dump as much money into it as possible, update it for “broad appeal”, have mass media shill it for hours on end, and throw in a heavy handed political message to ensure you cannot be criticized by the “right” people. What you cannot do is force people to spend money on poorly written garbage they have no interest in. Amazon’s half a billon dollar Lord of the Rings dumpster fire is a hilarious example of this in action.
Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Isn’t the situation more serious than this? Re-boots and risk aversion in film and TV is not that scary. What is terrifying is the fact that the UK today is no different from an East European state in the communist era. Look at the evidence – our publishers, State media BBC and theatre all prioritise and promote our State credo – race, LGBT and gender. Yes prioritised. The result is a nightmare of low quality identical dross, all serving the cause of minority victimhood greviance and entitlement. Books on Empire by top historian? Banned. Mention of the word Muslim in connection with terror attacks? Banned. The BBC OFCOM and MSM conspired to help lock us up in our homes for 2 years via propagandist hysteria – and by consciously banning and suppressing scientific criticism of lockdown. Big Brother should have lost its charter. But it has not. It and the London cultural elite all bow the knee to and SERVE a militant set of State backed ideologies; CRT, Net Zero, the climate catastrophe, Remainia and other such supposed ‘Higher Laws’. Free speech is not a higher law and it is surplus to requirements. Just as the Communists made their State/Pravda media promote ideas and lies scorned by the silent public, so our debased cultural output is similarly mocked and ignored by the public here – but it will not stop. Free speech does not exist in the UK – but they are not told this. Look at the SNP fanatics for a flavour of what is to come when progressive race hating Labour take power. Our legal system is so corrupted by ‘human rights’ it is no longer a shield to our liberties. They have been stolen. Unherd already is a classic samizdat underground publication familiar to Czech dissidents. Enjoy it while it lasts. It will not survive.
Just as the Communists made their State/Pravda media promote ideas and lies scorned by the silent public, so our debased cultural output is similarly mocked and ignored by the public here.
Not yet. The number mocking and ignoring is still a minority in the US on most issues, but a growing minority. A few shibboleths of the left are starting to crumble.
The Progressive Left re discovered a taste and prediliction for Stalinist authoritarianism in the 2 year lockdown tyranny. It is a heroin. Very addictive. Free speech – wobbling and undefended now – will not exist if Starmer and his fellow deranged Knee Bender Identitarian Kommissars sieze power. For Labour, loyalty to their extreme anti discriminatory credo is a ‘Higher Law’, superceding old world luxuries like freedom of expression and the duties of Fourth Estate. It is the only ideology it now has. It is a toxin. So any comments which in any way question or embarrass anything relating to the ‘Nine’ legally Privileged Victim Groups will become a criminal offence. Look at the SNP record. A warning. Study the BBC. A warning. Dig out Labour’s race plans. A warning. Then enjoy Unherd while you can.
The Progressive Left re discovered a taste and prediliction for Stalinist authoritarianism in the 2 year lockdown tyranny. It is a heroin. Very addictive. Free speech – wobbling and undefended now – will not exist if Starmer and his fellow deranged Knee Bender Identitarian Kommissars sieze power. For Labour, loyalty to their extreme anti discriminatory credo is a ‘Higher Law’, superceding old world luxuries like freedom of expression and the duties of Fourth Estate. It is the only ideology it now has. It is a toxin. So any comments which in any way question or embarrass anything relating to the ‘Nine’ legally Privileged Victim Groups will become a criminal offence. Look at the SNP record. A warning. Study the BBC. A warning. Dig out Labour’s race plans. A warning. Then enjoy Unherd while you can.
This is all highly amusing gibberish and the fact that is has 56 upvotes is both hilarious and slightly terrifying – are you people really this far gone?
I could pick apart every sentence for the utter nonsense it is but I don’t really have the time or inclination so let’s just focus on this:
“Books on Empire by top historian? Banned”
Please explain exactly what books have been banned and by whom.
Here’s a tip – you may wish to look up the definition of “banned” before you answer. Might save you looking even more foolish than you already do…
Here is a tip back Mr Snide. Rather than just wasting space here with unwitty petty insults why not actually argue the case and respond to any of points I am making about free speech?. I do not care for any criticism. I should have used the word ‘cancel’ rather than ‘ban’ in relation to the Biggar Empire publication. If you are happy with that story, the persecutions of ‘terf’ academics or lockdown sceptics and the myriad other abuses of free speech anyone sentient can see then you surely do not belong on Unherd.
Walter, you are on the money, ignore the snide criticism. You post was passionate and the main points completely accurate. However, I think Unherd will survive and prosper as is delicately trying, and broadly succeeding, in riding the slowly building resistance to to the woke wave. It’s messy out there, but I think we are already past peak woke and now fighting the long scrappy rearguard action to bring it completely down. It will be a long job but we will get there.
Thanks. I of course hope so too. Very eager to try out the new bar!. Free thinking will of course never be extinguished (as it plainly has been in certain squaky correspondents on this thread). But where will the platforms in the so called ‘public square’ be five years from now? The social media giants have already embraced censorship and utterly corrupted political reportage in America. And what hope can there be when our State broadcaster, fresh from its shameful propagandist/Censor in chief role in lockdown, declares itself a ‘champion’ of diversity and climate change/Net Zero , overtly, cheerily jettisoning its charter obligation to objective truth as it bows to the anti discriminatory cult? Unherd is already rather like those East European Samizdats, a brave outlier. The law does not protect is. Rather it is now (via the supreme human right obligations to the Nine) and the ill intent of identitarian progressive politicians, a weapon to be deployed against us.
“UnHerd….is delicately trying, and broadly succeeding , in riding the slowly building resistance to the woke wave.”
From the UnHerd “mission statement”; It’s easy and safe to be in one or the other of these camps- defensively liberal or angry reactionary, but UnHerd is trying to do something different, and harder.”
It seems, then, that UnHerd has failed, as the comments here are 95% “angry reactionary” group-think, and utterly intolerant of any dissent from this little fortress mentality.
And which main points were “completely accurate”?
The banning of history books? Which ones? When? Be specific.
The banning of the use of the word Muslim in connection with terrorism? Clearly, and demonstrably, untrue. “Radical Islam” and “Islamist” are very frequently used on TV and in newspapers in connection to terrorist incidents.
Net Zero being imposed by State diktat? Odd, I thought I saw a few hundred petrol cars today, and planes overhead, and my heating is oil, and a new coal mine is being opened soon, and some new North Sea platforms were being installed this week. So as absolute diktats go, it’s not really too impressive, is it?
“Race hating Labour”; I don’t really know what that means- I assume, if it means anything, that Labour “hate” white people. Really? That’s a “completely accurate fact”? Kier Starmer wants to drag all white people (including himself, I guess) behind a pick-up truck and then hang them from a tree? What exactly is this supposed to mean, in the real, objective world, rather than someone’s deranged paranoid fantasies?
The BBC “locking us in our homes”? Yes, that absolutely happened. You’ve got me there. Martha Kearny padlocked my front door shut and welded my windows. Help!
Thanks. I of course hope so too. Very eager to try out the new bar!. Free thinking will of course never be extinguished (as it plainly has been in certain squaky correspondents on this thread). But where will the platforms in the so called ‘public square’ be five years from now? The social media giants have already embraced censorship and utterly corrupted political reportage in America. And what hope can there be when our State broadcaster, fresh from its shameful propagandist/Censor in chief role in lockdown, declares itself a ‘champion’ of diversity and climate change/Net Zero , overtly, cheerily jettisoning its charter obligation to objective truth as it bows to the anti discriminatory cult? Unherd is already rather like those East European Samizdats, a brave outlier. The law does not protect is. Rather it is now (via the supreme human right obligations to the Nine) and the ill intent of identitarian progressive politicians, a weapon to be deployed against us.
“UnHerd….is delicately trying, and broadly succeeding , in riding the slowly building resistance to the woke wave.”
From the UnHerd “mission statement”; It’s easy and safe to be in one or the other of these camps- defensively liberal or angry reactionary, but UnHerd is trying to do something different, and harder.”
It seems, then, that UnHerd has failed, as the comments here are 95% “angry reactionary” group-think, and utterly intolerant of any dissent from this little fortress mentality.
And which main points were “completely accurate”?
The banning of history books? Which ones? When? Be specific.
The banning of the use of the word Muslim in connection with terrorism? Clearly, and demonstrably, untrue. “Radical Islam” and “Islamist” are very frequently used on TV and in newspapers in connection to terrorist incidents.
Net Zero being imposed by State diktat? Odd, I thought I saw a few hundred petrol cars today, and planes overhead, and my heating is oil, and a new coal mine is being opened soon, and some new North Sea platforms were being installed this week. So as absolute diktats go, it’s not really too impressive, is it?
“Race hating Labour”; I don’t really know what that means- I assume, if it means anything, that Labour “hate” white people. Really? That’s a “completely accurate fact”? Kier Starmer wants to drag all white people (including himself, I guess) behind a pick-up truck and then hang them from a tree? What exactly is this supposed to mean, in the real, objective world, rather than someone’s deranged paranoid fantasies?
The BBC “locking us in our homes”? Yes, that absolutely happened. You’ve got me there. Martha Kearny padlocked my front door shut and welded my windows. Help!
You know you’re doing something right when the resident trolls decide that you or your comments are worthy of their attentions. However, to say they don’t belong is erroneous, because there is not single comment section anywhere on the internet that does not accumulate an array of resident trolls whose life work is to disagree with everyone and everything.
It’s just one of those inevitabilities of the internet, may as well just learn to ignore them or use them for their entertainment value.
Walter, you are on the money, ignore the snide criticism. You post was passionate and the main points completely accurate. However, I think Unherd will survive and prosper as is delicately trying, and broadly succeeding, in riding the slowly building resistance to to the woke wave. It’s messy out there, but I think we are already past peak woke and now fighting the long scrappy rearguard action to bring it completely down. It will be a long job but we will get there.
You know you’re doing something right when the resident trolls decide that you or your comments are worthy of their attentions. However, to say they don’t belong is erroneous, because there is not single comment section anywhere on the internet that does not accumulate an array of resident trolls whose life work is to disagree with everyone and everything.
It’s just one of those inevitabilities of the internet, may as well just learn to ignore them or use them for their entertainment value.
Here is a tip back Mr Snide. Rather than just wasting space here with unwitty petty insults why not actually argue the case and respond to any of points I am making about free speech?. I do not care for any criticism. I should have used the word ‘cancel’ rather than ‘ban’ in relation to the Biggar Empire publication. If you are happy with that story, the persecutions of ‘terf’ academics or lockdown sceptics and the myriad other abuses of free speech anyone sentient can see then you surely do not belong on Unherd.
Well written and completely true. Here, in no particular order, are some of my countermeasures:-
I have undertaken to read only novels by white men, until the legacy publishing industry ends it racist de facto ban of white male fiction.Whenever I encounter woke people online or in real life, I always take care to be as openly abusive as possible.Whenever I engage the services of a commercial organisation, I always make it absolutely clear to them from the outset that any woke nonsense from them will immediately result in my taking my business elsewhere.I tell woke children to be quiet when the grown-ups are talking.
You’re a bloody hero, d**k. Truly, never has a oppressed victim of a tyrannical regime ever risked so much, so bravely, and under such horrific conditions as you are doing now.
Truly, you’re an inspiration. Every unread novel by a black woman is a magnificent blow for freedom. They can grind your body into the dust, but they can never break your spirit!
He’s a man – and almost no-one disagrees with that – especially on this page. Not even Nicola Sturgeon! As ever, there are a tiny cabal of activists who think otherwise – though Fox news and others want you to believe it’s a large, powerful, threatening mob (unlike the Jan 6 lot, who were of course a silly group of pranksters, in no way conencted to anything powerful – except the ones who were deep state/FBI plants) – so that they can better sell you stuff. Some people have a ring in their nose with the engraving, ‘property of woke inc’, others, ‘property of the tabloids’. Most avoid either.
He’s a man – and almost no-one disagrees with that – especially on this page. Not even Nicola Sturgeon! As ever, there are a tiny cabal of activists who think otherwise – though Fox news and others want you to believe it’s a large, powerful, threatening mob (unlike the Jan 6 lot, who were of course a silly group of pranksters, in no way conencted to anything powerful – except the ones who were deep state/FBI plants) – so that they can better sell you stuff. Some people have a ring in their nose with the engraving, ‘property of woke inc’, others, ‘property of the tabloids’. Most avoid either.
Ha! Your high satirical mode. Light on abuse and full of bite.
By the way: Have there been any major books published by straight-white-male authors this year or is the de facto ban at full mast?
Ha! Your high satirical mode. Light on abuse and full of bite.
By the way: Have there been any major books published by straight-white-male authors this year or is the de facto ban at full mast?
You’re a bloody hero, d**k. Truly, never has a oppressed victim of a tyrannical regime ever risked so much, so bravely, and under such horrific conditions as you are doing now.
Truly, you’re an inspiration. Every unread novel by a black woman is a magnificent blow for freedom. They can grind your body into the dust, but they can never break your spirit!
I have not read such unhinged, evidence free, bollocks since looking at Qanon. If you knew anything about real totalitarianism, such as exists in China or Russia, something like this site, which I often disagree with, would simply not exist. As for the BBC it has numerous faults, but having seen the alternatibe living in the U.S. its existence and continued survival is imperative. And it’s as cheap as chips.
Just as the Communists made their State/Pravda media promote ideas and lies scorned by the silent public, so our debased cultural output is similarly mocked and ignored by the public here.
Not yet. The number mocking and ignoring is still a minority in the US on most issues, but a growing minority. A few shibboleths of the left are starting to crumble.
This is all highly amusing gibberish and the fact that is has 56 upvotes is both hilarious and slightly terrifying – are you people really this far gone?
I could pick apart every sentence for the utter nonsense it is but I don’t really have the time or inclination so let’s just focus on this:
“Books on Empire by top historian? Banned”
Please explain exactly what books have been banned and by whom.
Here’s a tip – you may wish to look up the definition of “banned” before you answer. Might save you looking even more foolish than you already do…
Well written and completely true. Here, in no particular order, are some of my countermeasures:-
I have undertaken to read only novels by white men, until the legacy publishing industry ends it racist de facto ban of white male fiction.Whenever I encounter woke people online or in real life, I always take care to be as openly abusive as possible.Whenever I engage the services of a commercial organisation, I always make it absolutely clear to them from the outset that any woke nonsense from them will immediately result in my taking my business elsewhere.I tell woke children to be quiet when the grown-ups are talking.
I have not read such unhinged, evidence free, bollocks since looking at Qanon. If you knew anything about real totalitarianism, such as exists in China or Russia, something like this site, which I often disagree with, would simply not exist. As for the BBC it has numerous faults, but having seen the alternatibe living in the U.S. its existence and continued survival is imperative. And it’s as cheap as chips.
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Isn’t the situation more serious than this? Re-boots and risk aversion in film and TV is not that scary. What is terrifying is the fact that the UK today is no different from an East European state in the communist era. Look at the evidence – our publishers, State media BBC and theatre all prioritise and promote our State credo – race, LGBT and gender. Yes prioritised. The result is a nightmare of low quality identical dross, all serving the cause of minority victimhood greviance and entitlement. Books on Empire by top historian? Banned. Mention of the word Muslim in connection with terror attacks? Banned. The BBC OFCOM and MSM conspired to help lock us up in our homes for 2 years via propagandist hysteria – and by consciously banning and suppressing scientific criticism of lockdown. Big Brother should have lost its charter. But it has not. It and the London cultural elite all bow the knee to and SERVE a militant set of State backed ideologies; CRT, Net Zero, the climate catastrophe, Remainia and other such supposed ‘Higher Laws’. Free speech is not a higher law and it is surplus to requirements. Just as the Communists made their State/Pravda media promote ideas and lies scorned by the silent public, so our debased cultural output is similarly mocked and ignored by the public here – but it will not stop. Free speech does not exist in the UK – but they are not told this. Look at the SNP fanatics for a flavour of what is to come when progressive race hating Labour take power. Our legal system is so corrupted by ‘human rights’ it is no longer a shield to our liberties. They have been stolen. Unherd already is a classic samizdat underground publication familiar to Czech dissidents. Enjoy it while it lasts. It will not survive.
Steve Murray
1 year ago
One aspect of cultural activity which Mary’s article doesn’t delve into is painting/sculpture, aka fine art, although i’m not a fan of that term. It’s not an omission as such, since she’s making her case around popular visual media, whilst introducing me (at least) to the term “eldritch”.
I paint, my work is exhibited. The physical process of creation is one of the reasons i took it up, entranced by the potential for non-literal expression when engaged with the long, slow process of development through time and spiritual enrichment. It took years just to climb out of the foothills, and only really started to take off in retirement from what proved to be a fulfilling career elsewhere (i realised i was never going to make a living from it when in my 20s). But i do regard it as my life’s work. My point here is this: will this type of process, involving the production of a physical object, survive? I believe it will, and in fact i’d wager that as the emptiness of regurgitated visual culture hits home, such processes will be seen as having a premium. I’d compare it, without any sense of trivialising it, with the production of real ale and craft ale, following the attempt at homogenisation of beer from about 1960-2000.
Just one thing: for youngsters considering (or impelled towards) a career as an artist, art school isn’t necessarily the best route, and absolutely not the only one. Get out into life. Live, doing something else which involves escaping the art world bubble. For me, it was healthcare, but as long as seeing and absorbing different aspects of life (and death) it’ll enhance your practise in ways you would never otherwise imagine.
This is essentially what’s missing from creative production in the visual arts, and all artistic endeavour. Mary’s article points towards the symptoms; we must tackle the disease.
Depends on the art school. My husband and I met in ours, moved to NYC upon graduation, and have made our living as artists ever since. Our school was blessed with instructors and a dean who were all active professionals in their various fields, so we had the very unique position of directly competing with them when we left school and entered the work force. Being trained by one’s competition was truly an act on their part of great generosity and faith. Later, I taught illustration as an adjunct at a local college while I was still a syndicated cartoonist. I am very proud to say that most of my students went on to become pros, and I have kept in touch with several of them.
That’s great to hear, Alison. I’m afraid art schools in the UK have been taken over by a largely wokeist crowd, and any talent (in the broadest sense) will come through despite their ministrations rather than because of them. The model you describe sounds ideal.
They probably have here, as well, Steve. Back then, almost all of our instructors were men who were no-nonsense successful pros working in very tough, competitive fields, and they were preparing us for it. They knew that the large majority of freshmen would drop out after the first year because those kids thought it was going to be easy. If a student made it past his or her junior year, the teachers would devote themselves to getting that person into professional shape. My husband was awarded Best Senior Portfolio – the school’s highest honor – upon graduation and given a free fifth year studio “class” where he worked one-on-one with the dean. It really was a remarkable place. I, too, wish it was the model for all schools,
They probably have here, as well, Steve. Back then, almost all of our instructors were men who were no-nonsense successful pros working in very tough, competitive fields, and they were preparing us for it. They knew that the large majority of freshmen would drop out after the first year because those kids thought it was going to be easy. If a student made it past his or her junior year, the teachers would devote themselves to getting that person into professional shape. My husband was awarded Best Senior Portfolio – the school’s highest honor – upon graduation and given a free fifth year studio “class” where he worked one-on-one with the dean. It really was a remarkable place. I, too, wish it was the model for all schools,
You must have no more friends in the art world these days. Being an artist on the conservative side (I assume from your posts) of the aisle must be challenging.
We’ve paid the price professionally more than once, WT, but we do have a handful of right-leaning artist friends – mostly professional illustrators. These are self-employed guys (no women) who’ve made a living by sheer dint of talent and hard work. Many have mortgages, wives and kids, one guy is also a power lifter and pilot (!), all of them are big into sports – about as far away from the urban gallery fops that typify the species most people think of. I can’t imagine too many conservatives emerging from art schools today; they don’t even seem capable of producing artists.
Artists have been largely ‘progressive’, or anti-reactionary, since at least the Renaissance, when the modern idea of the ‘artist’ began- the Romantics being a prime example.
Whether you approve of it or not, political conservativism has always been a minority view in the arts. On the other hand, both Francis Bacon and Gilbert and George were/are great fans of Mrs. Thatcher, and I strongly suspect you would hate the “so-called art” of them.
Ooh, Charlie! “Miss”!
Brilliant. How devastatingly upsetting, to be labelled a “female”. The very thought fills me with both disgust and shame. I don’t know if I can continue actually, now I’ve heard that corruscating putdown. Not even married!
In answer to your question, though, I’m all ears to hear your refutation, and a comprehensive list of great reactionary painters.
The Futurists, of course, feigned a love of war and Fascism as cleansing antiseptics, and hated the ‘eternal feminine’, all of which is right up your alley, but then they were ghastly Modern daubers, so I’m not sure if that counts.
Can the great Nazi sculptors like Breker and Thorak be termed ‘conservative’? Surely not, not even reactionary. Perhaps we should just forget them, despite their fabulous, rippling male paragons.
My sincere apologies that should have been Mr NOT Miss, the perils of ‘predicted text’!
However I do dislike your uncalled for familiarity. I would never dream of addressing you as John or even worse Johnnie, and therefore expect you to address me as Stanhope or Mr Stanhope. Otherwise as ‘we’ say, you obviously don’t know “how to behave”. ( Mid-Atlantic again perhaps?)
Now as for: “Artists have been largely ‘progressive’, or anti-reactionary, since at least the Renaissance, when the modern idea of the ‘artist’ began- the Romantics being a prime example.” What a sweeping generalisation, you sound like a second rate version of the late Brian Sewell, with his “shock & awe” outbursts!
I could rattle of a list of list of reactionaries such as Dali, Goya or even the blessed G &G, but frankly I believe ‘Art’ died with collapse of the Pagan Roman Empire, and most of what has followed has been for the most part pretentious drivel. No doubt you will correct me?
Oh Master Stanhopeless.
So ‘Charles” is rude, yet “woke scum” is jolly fine and dandy- not to mention this unhealthy obsession with ‘gender realignment’ that you and your fellow UnHerd herd here seem to share.
Really- what did your poor Mummy and Daddy actually pay for? A little velvet suit and a deep ambivalence towards communal showers? I really don’t mean to be rude, Stan, but Christ- if you could manage even just the rudimentary appearance of rational thinking, you might begin to justify the money that your poor parents spent on your education. Come on, Charlie- think back to your lessons on those Greek chaps- not the fun stuff about young boys, but Socrates and that other one, Pluto or whatever he was called….
Oh Master Stanhopeless.
So ‘Charles” is rude, yet “woke scum” is jolly fine and dandy- not to mention this unhealthy obsession with ‘gender realignment’ that you and your fellow UnHerd herd here seem to share.
Really- what did your poor Mummy and Daddy actually pay for? A little velvet suit and a deep ambivalence towards communal showers? I really don’t mean to be rude, Stan, but Christ- if you could manage even just the rudimentary appearance of rational thinking, you might begin to justify the money that your poor parents spent on your education. Come on, Charlie- think back to your lessons on those Greek chaps- not the fun stuff about young boys, but Socrates and that other one, Pluto or whatever he was called….
Ah- the usual ‘identity’ whining about how people are allowed to refer to one, the correct name and pronoun, the tiresome demands that everyone ‘respects your self-definition’.
If it weren’t for the fact that you delight in public-schoolboy name-calling as much as you do, it would almost be touching in its sensitivity. As it is, it’s merely fatuously hypocritical posturing, Charles. You’ll just have to ‘man up’ and deal with the ‘threat’ to personal dignity and personal ‘narrative’.
As for your three names- a narcissistic pseudo-fascist, a pair of gay coprphilic mime artists and Goya, about whose political opinions almost nothing is known, aside from the fact that he was as disgusted by war as you are titillated by it. I assume you mention Brian Sewell, despite his total irrelevance in the context, because he’s the only art critic you’ve heard of.
Well done Charles- or can I can you Charlie?
I am sorry Holland but you have revealed yourself as just another ill mannered, ignorant ‘oik’.
I trust you parents didn’t waste their money by having you sent to a Public School?
I mentioned Sewell because your juvenile outbursts reminded me of him, surely even you could comprehend that?
You mentioned you were unmarried, so perhaps there is hope that some wonderful woman may transform you into a civilised human being. I live in hope if not expectation.
In future I would prefer that you address me as Stanhope or Mr Stanhope or perhaps even Sir. Do you think you can manage that Holland old chap.?
ps. As you imply you know something about art critics, what is your take on the Bernard Berenson- Joseph Duveen affair?
Well that’s not too impressive an argument, is it Chas?
Did you have a relevant point to make re your little list of artsists, or is your habit of feigning an attack of the vapours whenever an ‘offensive label’ upsets you the mainstay of your argument here?
Why it’s “ill-mannered” to refer to someone on the internet (as opposed to a 19th century drawing room) by their Christian name, but fine to spout half-baked insults (“Plastic Paddy”, “woke scum”, etc.), I’m not quite sure. Your definition of “manners” seems remarkably devoid of substance, if you don’t mind me saying so- which I’m sure you do. If your parents paid good money for your education, a refund might well be in order, old chap!
As for being unmarried, no- I never said that. I’m most certainly happily married- just ask Mrs. Holland. Why this might be relevant to you, Lord only knows. And though Brian Sewell was definately not married, being very much of the public school persuasion, he was famously conservative in his criticism (which, of course, you’d know if you’d ever actually read him); he hated pretty much all visual art since the mid-19th century. Just throwing out a name that you’ve heard of in the hope that it sounds good is a standard ‘internet rabble’ habit, and a very poor one if you lack the ability to go beyond the first ‘Google’ reference for ‘art critic’. For example- seeing the phrase ‘Bernard Berenson- Joseph Duveen’ pop up on your screen and hoping that sticking it in your response will sound a bit ‘knowledgeable’- even though this arcane and uninteresting “affair” was merely about money and attribution, and so entirely unrelated to the subject. Must try harder.
So- ‘Charles’ it is, unless you think your little friend here’s “scum” is the epitome of courtly charm? “Baby Holland” is certainly remarkably lame, as an attempt at an insult. I’m sure you can do better than that.
For all CS’s repeated and repeated and crude claims to class superiority, you might think he’d display a bit more of it. Instead we see the tired cliches of the social climber or laurel-rester (upon others’ success – school/family etc): regular latin quotations, tedious references to Eton and the Guards regiments. I am not a great success in the terms of the class elite, but I’ve know true successes in those circles in all my life, and CS does not sound like one to me. Rather,the aformentioned boorishness, and his recent recourse to name-calling such as, ‘Baby Holland’, and ‘Plastic Paddy’ (the tired SOPs of Johnson and Trump (which, funnily enough, only ever impressed’ ‘the oiks’) indicates he has slipped down the greasy pole, if he ever was up it.
It means I was lucky to be born into and move around a big world of genuine movers and shakers, rather than history’s great hangers-on. Just some luck – I am not one of these greats, but I do have a good sense of what they sound like, do, and how they act.
Really! How interesting, it sounds as if you were a Valet or Footman, which, as I am sure you will agree, is rather unusual these days?
I think that if you do your research properly you will find it is N S-T ( formerly Coldstream Guards) who often refers to the Guards.
So to Eton; As both Cameron & Johnson are Old Etonians as off course is the sainted Lord Jonathan Sumption, KS, I think it not unreasonable that the School should mentioned from time to time. If you are uncertain about this try asking those “movers and shakers” you speak of .
Incidentally when you rail against Eton, Oxford and the Guards it only makes you sound ‘chippy’. The fact that you did not have the inestimable privilege of joining this elite is NOT your fault, so get over it.
Finally, given your forename, you are NOT I trust yet another ‘Plastic Paddy’, albeit in disguise?
Your reply, should you wish to make one, will no doubt determine this issue.
A footman, too rich! Reminds me of a schoolmate, who would try to control the room by declaring, ‘but I’m the Earl of O___’ – he seemed to think that would make us fall into line, poor sod, but he was just 10 or so at the time.
I’m afraid I didn’t explain myself properly – I do not rail against Eton or Oxford, The Guards, or the aristocracy etc- I have met very fine people (better than me for sure) in each of these categories. In fact I can honestly say that I never met a Etonian I didn’t like, until recently. No, I rail against those who are constantly, gauchly, reminding people of their connections at every opportunity – and who are actually not good soldiers, businessmen, thinkers (or people) …makes me wonder if there might be a relationship between the two. I like those those whose wear it (their smarts, wealth, status) lightly and get admirable things done way above and beyond general expectation. For a topical example, I’d guess that Sumption rarely mentions his alma maters, and probably rather resents the diversion to the serious work he does….. and Cameron had the decency to crawl off into a depression after he failed in something he believed in (as opposed to the NPD Johnson).
Anyhow, back to what wound me up in the first place – your and Craven’s attempts at bullying JH – my view is that if a gentleman calls a gentleman an oik….well, then one of them surely is.
We are not “bullying” Holland, just giving him a bit of his own medicine.
He is normally the first to rail about “snowflakes” etc.
As I said before his conceit dwarfs his intellect, and coupled with his rudeness, he thus presents a perfect target. QED?
Incidentally one of our greatest soldiers and later Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington was the most revolting SNOB imaginable, and also the archetypal ‘Plastic Paddy’.
Amusing though your exchange with our superannuated public-schoolboy is, I wouldn’t describe his flatulent performences “bullying”.
Charlie here is doing us the service of exemplifying a ‘type’ that’s even now wearisomely prevalent in English life; the public-school educated mediocrity, the strutting blowhard who vainly hopes that mere snobbery is a substitute for thought, intellect, knowledge, or the slightest ability to muster a meaningful argument about anything whatsoever.
It’s fitfully amusing to watch him perform, until one actually wants engage with a brain rather than an arse.
We are not “bullying” Holland, just giving him a bit of his own medicine.
He is normally the first to rail about “snowflakes” etc.
As I said before his conceit dwarfs his intellect, and coupled with his rudeness, he thus presents a perfect target. QED?
Incidentally one of our greatest soldiers and later Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington was the most revolting SNOB imaginable, and also the archetypal ‘Plastic Paddy’.
Amusing though your exchange with our superannuated public-schoolboy is, I wouldn’t describe his flatulent performences “bullying”.
Charlie here is doing us the service of exemplifying a ‘type’ that’s even now wearisomely prevalent in English life; the public-school educated mediocrity, the strutting blowhard who vainly hopes that mere snobbery is a substitute for thought, intellect, knowledge, or the slightest ability to muster a meaningful argument about anything whatsoever.
It’s fitfully amusing to watch him perform, until one actually wants engage with a brain rather than an arse.
A footman, too rich! Reminds me of a schoolmate, who would try to control the room by declaring, ‘but I’m the Earl of O___’ – he seemed to think that would make us fall into line, poor sod, but he was just 10 or so at the time.
I’m afraid I didn’t explain myself properly – I do not rail against Eton or Oxford, The Guards, or the aristocracy etc- I have met very fine people (better than me for sure) in each of these categories. In fact I can honestly say that I never met a Etonian I didn’t like, until recently. No, I rail against those who are constantly, gauchly, reminding people of their connections at every opportunity – and who are actually not good soldiers, businessmen, thinkers (or people) …makes me wonder if there might be a relationship between the two. I like those those whose wear it (their smarts, wealth, status) lightly and get admirable things done way above and beyond general expectation. For a topical example, I’d guess that Sumption rarely mentions his alma maters, and probably rather resents the diversion to the serious work he does….. and Cameron had the decency to crawl off into a depression after he failed in something he believed in (as opposed to the NPD Johnson).
Anyhow, back to what wound me up in the first place – your and Craven’s attempts at bullying JH – my view is that if a gentleman calls a gentleman an oik….well, then one of them surely is.
Really! How interesting, it sounds as if you were a Valet or Footman, which, as I am sure you will agree, is rather unusual these days?
I think that if you do your research properly you will find it is N S-T ( formerly Coldstream Guards) who often refers to the Guards.
So to Eton; As both Cameron & Johnson are Old Etonians as off course is the sainted Lord Jonathan Sumption, KS, I think it not unreasonable that the School should mentioned from time to time. If you are uncertain about this try asking those “movers and shakers” you speak of .
Incidentally when you rail against Eton, Oxford and the Guards it only makes you sound ‘chippy’. The fact that you did not have the inestimable privilege of joining this elite is NOT your fault, so get over it.
Finally, given your forename, you are NOT I trust yet another ‘Plastic Paddy’, albeit in disguise?
Your reply, should you wish to make one, will no doubt determine this issue.
It means I was lucky to be born into and move around a big world of genuine movers and shakers, rather than history’s great hangers-on. Just some luck – I am not one of these greats, but I do have a good sense of what they sound like, do, and how they act.
For all CS’s repeated and repeated and crude claims to class superiority, you might think he’d display a bit more of it. Instead we see the tired cliches of the social climber or laurel-rester (upon others’ success – school/family etc): regular latin quotations, tedious references to Eton and the Guards regiments. I am not a great success in the terms of the class elite, but I’ve know true successes in those circles in all my life, and CS does not sound like one to me. Rather,the aformentioned boorishness, and his recent recourse to name-calling such as, ‘Baby Holland’, and ‘Plastic Paddy’ (the tired SOPs of Johnson and Trump (which, funnily enough, only ever impressed’ ‘the oiks’) indicates he has slipped down the greasy pole, if he ever was up it.
Good morning ‘Baby’ Holland. Gosh you do rise so easily to the bait!
You presumably never saw the play ‘The Old Masters’ about those two wretched fraudsters Berenson & Duveen? Too young I presume.Ditto Sewell.
I am glad that there is a Mrs Holland because you did state categorically earlier in this conversation that you were “Not even married!”*.
Also that rather clumsy phrase: “Perhaps we should just forget them, despite their fabulous, rippling male paragons”,** made me think that maybe you were a closet “botty bandit”, however now I am reassured. Please pass my commiserations to Mrs Holland, that woman is a Saint!
Ah, Charlie- is this really your best effort?
Your responses consist solely of tired insults about my putative lack of intellect/class/nationality, desperately trying to mask your total inability to accually engage with, or meaningfully respond to, any substantive points whatsoever.
You throw out a name that you hope sounds impressive (“Sewell! “Duveen”!), and then, when invariably shown to be clueless about the actual details of your reference, rather than attempt any serious defense of your Google-based name-dropping, you run around wittering about my age, “botty bandits” or some other witless irrelevence.
Your posts are devoid of intellectual content- a series of farting noises made on a plastic trumpet.
Ah, Charlie- is this really your best effort?
Your responses consist solely of tired insults about my putative lack of intellect/class/nationality, desperately trying to mask your total inability to accually engage with, or meaningfully respond to, any substantive points whatsoever.
You throw out a name that you hope sounds impressive (“Sewell! “Duveen”!), and then, when invariably shown to be clueless about the actual details of your reference, rather than attempt any serious defense of your Google-based name-dropping, you run around wittering about my age, “botty bandits” or some other witless irrelevence.
Your posts are devoid of intellectual content- a series of farting noises made on a plastic trumpet.
‘Baby’ Holland is an obvious compliment to youth and vitality as demonstrated by how quickly you have edited your previous comment!
Incidentally Sewell was a stickler for ‘qualifications’, he was forever banging on about “what are your qualifications” etc. So may I ask what are yours?
Off course in many ways Sewell was a bit of a reprobate, but I enjoyed his critique.
Also did you by any chance read his wonderful obituary to his dog, a ‘rescue’ Whippet I think, written not long before died?
I thought it rivalled Byron’s obit for Boatswain.
Chas, dear, you really haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. Snippings from Wikepedia (‘I know he had a dog!’, ‘If I irrelevantly mention Byron does that get me extra points?!’, ect.) really aren’t worth engaging with.
Stop now. It’s becoming tedious.
Chas, dear, you really haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. Snippings from Wikepedia (‘I know he had a dog!’, ‘If I irrelevantly mention Byron does that get me extra points?!’, ect.) really aren’t worth engaging with.
Stop now. It’s becoming tedious.
Good morning ‘Baby’ Holland. Gosh you do rise so easily to the bait!
You presumably never saw the play ‘The Old Masters’ about those two wretched fraudsters Berenson & Duveen? Too young I presume.Ditto Sewell.
I am glad that there is a Mrs Holland because you did state categorically earlier in this conversation that you were “Not even married!”*.
Also that rather clumsy phrase: “Perhaps we should just forget them, despite their fabulous, rippling male paragons”,** made me think that maybe you were a closet “botty bandit”, however now I am reassured. Please pass my commiserations to Mrs Holland, that woman is a Saint!
‘Baby’ Holland is an obvious compliment to youth and vitality as demonstrated by how quickly you have edited your previous comment!
Incidentally Sewell was a stickler for ‘qualifications’, he was forever banging on about “what are your qualifications” etc. So may I ask what are yours?
Off course in many ways Sewell was a bit of a reprobate, but I enjoyed his critique.
Also did you by any chance read his wonderful obituary to his dog, a ‘rescue’ Whippet I think, written not long before died?
I thought it rivalled Byron’s obit for Boatswain.
Well that’s not too impressive an argument, is it Chas?
Did you have a relevant point to make re your little list of artsists, or is your habit of feigning an attack of the vapours whenever an ‘offensive label’ upsets you the mainstay of your argument here?
Why it’s “ill-mannered” to refer to someone on the internet (as opposed to a 19th century drawing room) by their Christian name, but fine to spout half-baked insults (“Plastic Paddy”, “woke scum”, etc.), I’m not quite sure. Your definition of “manners” seems remarkably devoid of substance, if you don’t mind me saying so- which I’m sure you do. If your parents paid good money for your education, a refund might well be in order, old chap!
As for being unmarried, no- I never said that. I’m most certainly happily married- just ask Mrs. Holland. Why this might be relevant to you, Lord only knows. And though Brian Sewell was definately not married, being very much of the public school persuasion, he was famously conservative in his criticism (which, of course, you’d know if you’d ever actually read him); he hated pretty much all visual art since the mid-19th century. Just throwing out a name that you’ve heard of in the hope that it sounds good is a standard ‘internet rabble’ habit, and a very poor one if you lack the ability to go beyond the first ‘Google’ reference for ‘art critic’. For example- seeing the phrase ‘Bernard Berenson- Joseph Duveen’ pop up on your screen and hoping that sticking it in your response will sound a bit ‘knowledgeable’- even though this arcane and uninteresting “affair” was merely about money and attribution, and so entirely unrelated to the subject. Must try harder.
So- ‘Charles’ it is, unless you think your little friend here’s “scum” is the epitome of courtly charm? “Baby Holland” is certainly remarkably lame, as an attempt at an insult. I’m sure you can do better than that.
I am sorry Holland but you have revealed yourself as just another ill mannered, ignorant ‘oik’.
I trust you parents didn’t waste their money by having you sent to a Public School?
I mentioned Sewell because your juvenile outbursts reminded me of him, surely even you could comprehend that?
You mentioned you were unmarried, so perhaps there is hope that some wonderful woman may transform you into a civilised human being. I live in hope if not expectation.
In future I would prefer that you address me as Stanhope or Mr Stanhope or perhaps even Sir. Do you think you can manage that Holland old chap.?
ps. As you imply you know something about art critics, what is your take on the Bernard Berenson- Joseph Duveen affair?
Ah- the usual ‘identity’ whining about how people are allowed to refer to one, the correct name and pronoun, the tiresome demands that everyone ‘respects your self-definition’.
If it weren’t for the fact that you delight in public-schoolboy name-calling as much as you do, it would almost be touching in its sensitivity. As it is, it’s merely fatuously hypocritical posturing, Charles. You’ll just have to ‘man up’ and deal with the ‘threat’ to personal dignity and personal ‘narrative’.
As for your three names- a narcissistic pseudo-fascist, a pair of gay coprphilic mime artists and Goya, about whose political opinions almost nothing is known, aside from the fact that he was as disgusted by war as you are titillated by it. I assume you mention Brian Sewell, despite his total irrelevance in the context, because he’s the only art critic you’ve heard of.
Well done Charles- or can I can you Charlie?
The Futurists, of course, feigned a love of war and Fascism as cleansing antiseptics, and hated the ‘eternal feminine’, all of which is right up your alley, but then they were ghastly Modern daubers, so I’m not sure if that counts.
Can the great Nazi sculptors like Breker and Thorak be termed ‘conservative’? Surely not, not even reactionary. Perhaps we should just forget them, despite their fabulous, rippling male paragons.
My sincere apologies that should have been Mr NOT Miss, the perils of ‘predicted text’!
However I do dislike your uncalled for familiarity. I would never dream of addressing you as John or even worse Johnnie, and therefore expect you to address me as Stanhope or Mr Stanhope. Otherwise as ‘we’ say, you obviously don’t know “how to behave”. ( Mid-Atlantic again perhaps?)
Now as for: “Artists have been largely ‘progressive’, or anti-reactionary, since at least the Renaissance, when the modern idea of the ‘artist’ began- the Romantics being a prime example.” What a sweeping generalisation, you sound like a second rate version of the late Brian Sewell, with his “shock & awe” outbursts!
I could rattle of a list of list of reactionaries such as Dali, Goya or even the blessed G &G, but frankly I believe ‘Art’ died with collapse of the Pagan Roman Empire, and most of what has followed has been for the most part pretentious drivel. No doubt you will correct me?
Ooh, Charlie! “Miss”!
Brilliant. How devastatingly upsetting, to be labelled a “female”. The very thought fills me with both disgust and shame. I don’t know if I can continue actually, now I’ve heard that corruscating putdown. Not even married!
In answer to your question, though, I’m all ears to hear your refutation, and a comprehensive list of great reactionary painters.
Look. Rubber. You need a literary history lesson. Wordsworth and Coleridge both lost their youthful enthusiasm for revolution and drifted into Toryism as they matured, Rubber, as you will when you grow up. You’ll find an amusing lampoon of Coleridge’s conservatism in Thomas Love Peacock’s Nightmare Abbey. And Wordsworth was horrified by Robespierre’s Reign of Terror which he witnessed at first hand as a young man in Paris, and twenty years later was wont to compare Napoleon to Milton’s depiction of Satan in Paradise Lost.
Good on you for persisting with the “Rubber” thing. I assume it’s a reference to the condom euphemism of our youth, rubber jonny. Excellent- keep it up.
As for the “lesson”- the subject, if you’d bother to read, is visual artists. Never mind, Dickie.
Not to interrupt your mudslinging and name-calling thread, which is not without its intermittent highlights from either side, but I think you mention two good (probably great) English poets with conservative leanings of a different sort, which pushes against, but does not invalidate Mr. Holland’s overall point: very few, not zero,
It’s also sort of fun to remember that many would have considered Milton a radical or a fundamentalist (Puritan) of a very unconservative strain in his own time, what with all that nasty Cromwellian, regicide type business. Favored divorce rights and a free press though.
Indeed- regardless of Mr. “Wokescum”‘s confusion about the actual subject under discussion, we need to be aware of the problem of anachronism- the lazy and ideologically convenient application of contemporary ideas of ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ to people in the past.
My point about visual artists wasn’t that they have been, since the Renaissance, ‘liberal’ in the contemporary sense- just that art from the late 14th century has been consistently defined by change, by each new generation of artists challenging their elders and creating something ‘new’, relatively speaking. That is what ‘modern’ (meaning, essentially, post Medieval) means. Milton was a revolutionary- he was the antithesis of a conservative, but he certainly wasn’t in any way ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’- in the modern sense- either.
I think my comment was ‘disappeared’, but this is an important point- the anachronistic choralling of history into simplistic ‘for or against’ contemporary ideological arguments.
The visual arts since the end of the Medieval period have been defined by change- no ‘major’ artist has not been a challenger of what went before, and as such, has been ‘progressive’ and ‘unconservative’. That doesn’t mean they were ‘Progressive’ in the contemporary political sense- there’s no reason to think that Caravaggio would have voted Democrat, gay murderer though he may have been (joke). Milton was not a conservative- nevermind his religiosity. He was a radical. But he wasn’t a radical who would be happy in the Labour Party.
Indeed- regardless of Mr. “Wokescum”‘s confusion about the actual subject under discussion, we need to be aware of the problem of anachronism- the lazy and ideologically convenient application of contemporary ideas of ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ to people in the past.
My point about visual artists wasn’t that they have been, since the Renaissance, ‘liberal’ in the contemporary sense- just that art from the late 14th century has been consistently defined by change, by each new generation of artists challenging their elders and creating something ‘new’, relatively speaking. That is what ‘modern’ (meaning, essentially, post Medieval) means. Milton was a revolutionary- he was the antithesis of a conservative, but he certainly wasn’t in any way ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’- in the modern sense- either.
I think my comment was ‘disappeared’, but this is an important point- the anachronistic choralling of history into simplistic ‘for or against’ contemporary ideological arguments.
The visual arts since the end of the Medieval period have been defined by change- no ‘major’ artist has not been a challenger of what went before, and as such, has been ‘progressive’ and ‘unconservative’. That doesn’t mean they were ‘Progressive’ in the contemporary political sense- there’s no reason to think that Caravaggio would have voted Democrat, gay murderer though he may have been (joke). Milton was not a conservative- nevermind his religiosity. He was a radical. But he wasn’t a radical who would be happy in the Labour Party.
Some may have “drifted into Toryism as they matured”, but they also sank into total mediocrity, sadly. Such is the tragedy of the loss of human capacity.
Who now reads anything by the elderly Wordsworth?
Good on you for persisting with the “Rubber” thing. I assume it’s a reference to the condom euphemism of our youth, rubber jonny. Excellent- keep it up.
As for the “lesson”- the subject, if you’d bother to read, is visual artists. Never mind, Dickie.
Not to interrupt your mudslinging and name-calling thread, which is not without its intermittent highlights from either side, but I think you mention two good (probably great) English poets with conservative leanings of a different sort, which pushes against, but does not invalidate Mr. Holland’s overall point: very few, not zero,
It’s also sort of fun to remember that many would have considered Milton a radical or a fundamentalist (Puritan) of a very unconservative strain in his own time, what with all that nasty Cromwellian, regicide type business. Favored divorce rights and a free press though.
Some may have “drifted into Toryism as they matured”, but they also sank into total mediocrity, sadly. Such is the tragedy of the loss of human capacity.
Who now reads anything by the elderly Wordsworth?
“Reactionary” describes the Left, as does “hysterical”, “judgmental”, “censorious”, and “intolerant”. When my husband and I were in art school, absolutely nothing was off limits. The idea of quashing a student’s work – whatever the theme – was unthinkable. In visiting the website of our former school – a sad shell of its original iteration – it’s the obviously low quality of the student work that is so striking. The work is crap. If we produced similar, elementary school daubs, we would have been encouraged to explore other professions. That you and others think art is, by nature, “progressive” never had to earn a paycheck from it. Working artists flatter patrons out of necessity. It’s very, very hard to take a stand against doing that. I know from experience, and I’m at peace with our stance.
With all due respect: What art do you like? I am hearing mostly dismissal and self-congratulation.
On your own list of the 10 of 25 best artists of all time in any medium: sculpture, painting, music…Well, first of all, who are they? And how many would you characterize as conventional or conservative according to their works or known views?
It’s a bit much to reduce anyone, let alone a great artist, to one side of some reductive political divide. But are you asserting that judgmentalism, intolerance, censoriousness or even resistance-to-change are more characteristic of the liberal than the conservative mindset? Does art that is innovative or otherwise great tend to emerge from a protective traditionalism?
I’m in sympathy with a number of your expressed views but request you elaborate on your seeming contention that great artists were commonly subservient (rather than just outwardly deferential) to their patrons. I understand Michelangelo, Blake, and many others got in hot water for not following the sellout model seem to defend as a norm you’re “at peace with”.
I don’t think good, lasting art (and I’m more of a literature guy, though not a self-professed expert on that either) is “by nature progressive” but I do think it tends to be challenging, innovative, or unconventional. That doesn’t directly reflect on the political or social views of the artists in question, and a robust list of exceptions could be compiled. But while exceptions may devalue or even explode any idea of a solid rule, they don’t disprove the general tendency.
Of course I agree that the left is no stranger to hyper-reactive and censorious impulses.
What are my Top Tens? Who cares, really? I’m concerned with making a living in my chosen field, which I’ve managed to do for 40 years. If you disagree with my stance, that’s perfectly fine – in fact, that’s what making art of any kind should be about (no “sensitivity” scolds welcome). If that sounds self-congratulatory, I’ll take it.
Fair enough I suppose. I, for one, was interested in what it is you do like, except your own work. Rock on as a champion of your own cartoons and market success, with irrelevant favorites and general findings of crap in others’ work. As a causal art viewer, I can imagine that most of the art school work is truly dreadful.
I understand you to assert that any art–music, sculpture, poetry– should be about deriving an income from that art. So you’d offer your grudging respect to a left-wing artist making experimental garbage if he or she made a living at it?
So if you’re saying that making a living from art is sufficient as a guide to its worth, you must find the above article’s dismissal of contemporary artistic culture as utter, regurgitated rubbish to be completely unfounded and unfair, yes?
I’m not saying that at all, but trying to confirm that Allison Barrows was in fact claiming that, and would therefore–according to her own framework–“have” to respect postmodernism or trashy performance agitprop theatre, for example, as long as it made money.
I don’t think professionalization or monetization is a sufficient or even a good guide to creative worth, though it’s nice work if you can manage it (getting paid to pursue your artistic passion, not “selling out” wholesale).
And while I think we are in the midst of a pretty trashy and crass cultural moment, I do think easy pronouncements like “it’s all crap now” are unfounded and tend to come from a reactionary or rigidly antiquarian mindset. And sometimes from people who really don’t much care for art (painting, music, literature, etc.) at all, but feel the need to make the lazy, yet eternally popular claim that nowadays it’s even worse. “O tempora! O mores!”
We both know this website has a fairly numerous and very outspoken “damn kids these days” / “all gone to hell in a handbasket” contingent. Sometimes I try engage such commenters on a version of what I perceive to be their own terms, but as you also know: that usually doesn’t lead to much of substance, just rhetorical blows exchanged, zingers landed, points scored, yadda yadda.
Exceptions do occur though–and sometimes it’s fun to squabble, or attempt to gain “likes” and hints of movement when you know you’re outnumbered. It’s even possible that our own position or perspective will budge for the better, as unlikely as that is once things get disputatious.
“The golden age was never the present age” –Poor Richard
I’m not saying that at all, but trying to confirm that Allison Barrows was in fact claiming that, and would therefore–according to her own framework–“have” to respect postmodernism or trashy performance agitprop theatre, for example, as long as it made money.
I don’t think professionalization or monetization is a sufficient or even a good guide to creative worth, though it’s nice work if you can manage it (getting paid to pursue your artistic passion, not “selling out” wholesale).
And while I think we are in the midst of a pretty trashy and crass cultural moment, I do think easy pronouncements like “it’s all crap now” are unfounded and tend to come from a reactionary or rigidly antiquarian mindset. And sometimes from people who really don’t much care for art (painting, music, literature, etc.) at all, but feel the need to make the lazy, yet eternally popular claim that nowadays it’s even worse. “O tempora! O mores!”
We both know this website has a fairly numerous and very outspoken “damn kids these days” / “all gone to hell in a handbasket” contingent. Sometimes I try engage such commenters on a version of what I perceive to be their own terms, but as you also know: that usually doesn’t lead to much of substance, just rhetorical blows exchanged, zingers landed, points scored, yadda yadda.
Exceptions do occur though–and sometimes it’s fun to squabble, or attempt to gain “likes” and hints of movement when you know you’re outnumbered. It’s even possible that our own position or perspective will budge for the better, as unlikely as that is once things get disputatious.
“The golden age was never the present age” –Poor Richard
So if you’re saying that making a living from art is sufficient as a guide to its worth, you must find the above article’s dismissal of contemporary artistic culture as utter, regurgitated rubbish to be completely unfounded and unfair, yes?
Fair enough I suppose. I, for one, was interested in what it is you do like, except your own work. Rock on as a champion of your own cartoons and market success, with irrelevant favorites and general findings of crap in others’ work. As a causal art viewer, I can imagine that most of the art school work is truly dreadful.
I understand you to assert that any art–music, sculpture, poetry– should be about deriving an income from that art. So you’d offer your grudging respect to a left-wing artist making experimental garbage if he or she made a living at it?
What are my Top Tens? Who cares, really? I’m concerned with making a living in my chosen field, which I’ve managed to do for 40 years. If you disagree with my stance, that’s perfectly fine – in fact, that’s what making art of any kind should be about (no “sensitivity” scolds welcome). If that sounds self-congratulatory, I’ll take it.
“Reactionary, hysterical, judgemental, censorious and intolerant” describe people who exhibit these ‘qualities’, whether ‘left’ or ‘right’. Anyone claiming a monopoly of these things for a ‘side’ is failing to think very hard. I was called “scum” earlier by a member of the UnHerd angry brigade- someone most definitely not on the left, for example.
Then again, you describe ‘progressives’ as “judgemental” and “intolerant”, and you feign outrage that in the Good Old Days “quashing a student’s work….was unthinkable”; you then describe the work you disapprove of as “crap”. Can you work out the hopeless inconsistency there? You hate the “judgementalism” of ‘progressives’, you hate the idea of “quashing student’s work”- but you think all the work now is “crap”.
I hate to say it, but I really don’t think that you’ve quite thought this through….
Just as an exercise, can you find any comments on this site that are both conservative and “judgemental” or “intolerant”?
For example; “woke scum”, posted at least five times now by an Unherd fanboy here, one who particularly hates me. Is that ‘tolerant’ and ‘non-judgemental’? You must think so, strangely.
But how? I’d be very grateful if you could explain….
Just as an exercise, can you find any comments on this site that are both conservative and “judgemental” or “intolerant”?
For example; “woke scum”, posted at least five times now by an Unherd fanboy here, one who particularly hates me. Is that ‘tolerant’ and ‘non-judgemental’? You must think so, strangely.
But how? I’d be very grateful if you could explain….
With all due respect: What art do you like? I am hearing mostly dismissal and self-congratulation.
On your own list of the 10 of 25 best artists of all time in any medium: sculpture, painting, music…Well, first of all, who are they? And how many would you characterize as conventional or conservative according to their works or known views?
It’s a bit much to reduce anyone, let alone a great artist, to one side of some reductive political divide. But are you asserting that judgmentalism, intolerance, censoriousness or even resistance-to-change are more characteristic of the liberal than the conservative mindset? Does art that is innovative or otherwise great tend to emerge from a protective traditionalism?
I’m in sympathy with a number of your expressed views but request you elaborate on your seeming contention that great artists were commonly subservient (rather than just outwardly deferential) to their patrons. I understand Michelangelo, Blake, and many others got in hot water for not following the sellout model seem to defend as a norm you’re “at peace with”.
I don’t think good, lasting art (and I’m more of a literature guy, though not a self-professed expert on that either) is “by nature progressive” but I do think it tends to be challenging, innovative, or unconventional. That doesn’t directly reflect on the political or social views of the artists in question, and a robust list of exceptions could be compiled. But while exceptions may devalue or even explode any idea of a solid rule, they don’t disprove the general tendency.
Of course I agree that the left is no stranger to hyper-reactive and censorious impulses.
“Reactionary, hysterical, judgemental, censorious and intolerant” describe people who exhibit these ‘qualities’, whether ‘left’ or ‘right’. Anyone claiming a monopoly of these things for a ‘side’ is failing to think very hard. I was called “scum” earlier by a member of the UnHerd angry brigade- someone most definitely not on the left, for example.
Then again, you describe ‘progressives’ as “judgemental” and “intolerant”, and you feign outrage that in the Good Old Days “quashing a student’s work….was unthinkable”; you then describe the work you disapprove of as “crap”. Can you work out the hopeless inconsistency there? You hate the “judgementalism” of ‘progressives’, you hate the idea of “quashing student’s work”- but you think all the work now is “crap”.
I hate to say it, but I really don’t think that you’ve quite thought this through….
Not sure about that; there were plenty of royal portrait painters, Rembrandt, Constable, Turner, Gainsborough, Pre Raphaelites, etc. Modernists were largely about painting out of doors and capturing light and movement. Picasso was left wing, Dali was not.
Your comments apply to some post WW1 artists and art schools but rarely landscape painters such as Paul Nash, Roland Hilder, James Fletcher Watson, Gordon Beningfield, though Ian MacInnes was a socialist.
Those artists who enjoy London celebrity are often left wing but those working in the countryside and painting land scapes are often non-political.
You’re mistaking my assertion of the ‘unconservative’ nature of post-Renaissance art with an argument for the artists being ‘left-wing’ in the contemporary, ideological sense.
That wasn’t my point. Rembrandt, Constable, Turner at al were, in the artistic and cultural sense, ‘revolutionary’- whatever their personal political views. Their art was ‘unconservative’.
You’re mistaking my assertion of the ‘unconservative’ nature of post-Renaissance art with an argument for the artists being ‘left-wing’ in the contemporary, ideological sense.
That wasn’t my point. Rembrandt, Constable, Turner at al were, in the artistic and cultural sense, ‘revolutionary’- whatever their personal political views. Their art was ‘unconservative’.
Look. Rubber. You need a literary history lesson. Wordsworth and Coleridge both lost their youthful enthusiasm for revolution and drifted into Toryism as they matured, Rubber, as you will when you grow up. You’ll find an amusing lampoon of Coleridge’s conservatism in Thomas Love Peacock’s Nightmare Abbey. And Wordsworth was horrified by Robespierre’s Reign of Terror which he witnessed at first hand as a young man in Paris, and twenty years later was wont to compare Napoleon to Milton’s depiction of Satan in Paradise Lost.
“Reactionary” describes the Left, as does “hysterical”, “judgmental”, “censorious”, and “intolerant”. When my husband and I were in art school, absolutely nothing was off limits. The idea of quashing a student’s work – whatever the theme – was unthinkable. In visiting the website of our former school – a sad shell of its original iteration – it’s the obviously low quality of the student work that is so striking. The work is crap. If we produced similar, elementary school daubs, we would have been encouraged to explore other professions. That you and others think art is, by nature, “progressive” never had to earn a paycheck from it. Working artists flatter patrons out of necessity. It’s very, very hard to take a stand against doing that. I know from experience, and I’m at peace with our stance.
Not sure about that; there were plenty of royal portrait painters, Rembrandt, Constable, Turner, Gainsborough, Pre Raphaelites, etc. Modernists were largely about painting out of doors and capturing light and movement. Picasso was left wing, Dali was not.
Your comments apply to some post WW1 artists and art schools but rarely landscape painters such as Paul Nash, Roland Hilder, James Fletcher Watson, Gordon Beningfield, though Ian MacInnes was a socialist.
Those artists who enjoy London celebrity are often left wing but those working in the countryside and painting land scapes are often non-political.
We’ve paid the price professionally more than once, WT, but we do have a handful of right-leaning artist friends – mostly professional illustrators. These are self-employed guys (no women) who’ve made a living by sheer dint of talent and hard work. Many have mortgages, wives and kids, one guy is also a power lifter and pilot (!), all of them are big into sports – about as far away from the urban gallery fops that typify the species most people think of. I can’t imagine too many conservatives emerging from art schools today; they don’t even seem capable of producing artists.
Artists have been largely ‘progressive’, or anti-reactionary, since at least the Renaissance, when the modern idea of the ‘artist’ began- the Romantics being a prime example.
Whether you approve of it or not, political conservativism has always been a minority view in the arts. On the other hand, both Francis Bacon and Gilbert and George were/are great fans of Mrs. Thatcher, and I strongly suspect you would hate the “so-called art” of them.
That’s great to hear, Alison. I’m afraid art schools in the UK have been taken over by a largely wokeist crowd, and any talent (in the broadest sense) will come through despite their ministrations rather than because of them. The model you describe sounds ideal.
You must have no more friends in the art world these days. Being an artist on the conservative side (I assume from your posts) of the aisle must be challenging.
Depends on the art school. My husband and I met in ours, moved to NYC upon graduation, and have made our living as artists ever since. Our school was blessed with instructors and a dean who were all active professionals in their various fields, so we had the very unique position of directly competing with them when we left school and entered the work force. Being trained by one’s competition was truly an act on their part of great generosity and faith. Later, I taught illustration as an adjunct at a local college while I was still a syndicated cartoonist. I am very proud to say that most of my students went on to become pros, and I have kept in touch with several of them.
Steve Murray
1 year ago
One aspect of cultural activity which Mary’s article doesn’t delve into is painting/sculpture, aka fine art, although i’m not a fan of that term. It’s not an omission as such, since she’s making her case around popular visual media, whilst introducing me (at least) to the term “eldritch”.
I paint, my work is exhibited. The physical process of creation is one of the reasons i took it up, entranced by the potential for non-literal expression when engaged with the long, slow process of development through time and spiritual enrichment. It took years just to climb out of the foothills, and only really started to take off in retirement from what proved to be a fulfilling career elsewhere (i realised i was never going to make a living from it when in my 20s). But i do regard it as my life’s work. My point here is this: will this type of process, involving the production of a physical object, survive? I believe it will, and in fact i’d wager that as the emptiness of regurgitated visual culture hits home, such processes will be seen as having a premium. I’d compare it, without any sense of trivialising it, with the production of real ale and craft ale, following the attempt at homogenisation of beer from about 1960-2000.
Just one thing: for youngsters considering (or impelled towards) a career as an artist, art school isn’t necessarily the best route, and absolutely not the only one. Get out into life. Live, doing something else which involves escaping the art world bubble. For me, it was healthcare, but as long as seeing and absorbing different aspects of life (and death) it’ll enhance your practise in ways you would never otherwise imagine.
This is essentially what’s missing from creative production in the visual arts, and all artistic endeavour. Mary’s article points towards the symptoms; we must tackle the disease.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Joe Donovan
1 year ago
Sorry. This whole argument is too abstract for me!
The cultural force behind the “spokescandies” is the same as the cultural force that within a few short years has virtually stripped all US commercial television advertisements of leading white men, even though they — we — still constitute the single largest demographic group. Without any rule having been written, EVERY ad must feature a BIPOC in the lead role, often in a kind and gentle way educating, or getting out of some comic trouble, the doofus with the white skin.
This has nothing to do with some overriding conflict between the abstract and the material I think.
I wonder at the howls and personal literature theses that would spark if (I) admitted my white racism, seeing the brown M&M as a Black lady? Maybe also being elicited by some psychological trope, but then also being (Scientism) racism?
It certainly assigns more importance to this advertising campaign than seems warranted.
“They can also be read as evidence, writ small, of something bleaker: the accelerating collapse of cultural creativity into endless, stagnant, and usually woke reboots and remixes.”
Right. Almost anything can be read as emblematic or profoundly significant, but that doesn’t mean it should be. A high-powered microscope doesn’t establish that the import isn’t “writ small” with good reason.
Yes. ‘Woke” ‘Anti-Woke” think they are mortal enemies. Actually, they are like wrestlers fighting in WWF contests, strutting up and down drawing hysterical cheers from their respective fans.
To everyone one else, they are both arses.
Yes. ‘Woke” ‘Anti-Woke” think they are mortal enemies. Actually, they are like wrestlers fighting in WWF contests, strutting up and down drawing hysterical cheers from their respective fans.
To everyone one else, they are both arses.
I wonder at the howls and personal literature theses that would spark if (I) admitted my white racism, seeing the brown M&M as a Black lady? Maybe also being elicited by some psychological trope, but then also being (Scientism) racism?
It certainly assigns more importance to this advertising campaign than seems warranted.
“They can also be read as evidence, writ small, of something bleaker: the accelerating collapse of cultural creativity into endless, stagnant, and usually woke reboots and remixes.”
Right. Almost anything can be read as emblematic or profoundly significant, but that doesn’t mean it should be. A high-powered microscope doesn’t establish that the import isn’t “writ small” with good reason.
Joe Donovan
1 year ago
Sorry. This whole argument is too abstract for me!
The cultural force behind the “spokescandies” is the same as the cultural force that within a few short years has virtually stripped all US commercial television advertisements of leading white men, even though they — we — still constitute the single largest demographic group. Without any rule having been written, EVERY ad must feature a BIPOC in the lead role, often in a kind and gentle way educating, or getting out of some comic trouble, the doofus with the white skin.
This has nothing to do with some overriding conflict between the abstract and the material I think.
Andrew Horsman
1 year ago
Artificial intelligence is capable only of “learning” from the past, from what already exists. It cannot create anything new. As humans become more machine like and unlearn skills, it’s inevitable that the spark of creative genius will get snuffed out. All we are getting now is a recursive, derivative regurgitation of what he gone before, a culture on auto-pilot, reinforced by the monopolistic economics of mass adopted technology, with nothing guiding it other than its own internally flawed and inherently contradictory belief systems.
It’s going to take some good old-fashioned human courage to put a stop to it and bring some order back into the atrophying cultural chaos that post-modernism and the worship of the self has plunged us all into. Good old Friedrich is no doubt laughing his nihilistic virtual head off in his IRL grave. It may get a lot worse before it gets better.
“…Artificial intelligence is capable only of “learning” from the past, from what already exists. It cannot create anything new…”
This is plain flat not true – illustrated by chess engines (AlphaZero, Leela, Stockfish etc) who display an interesting lesson in this context. The world Chess champion, Magnus Carlsen, has a rating of around 2860, the highest of anyone in history. The top chess engines are 3700+, and no human (or group of humans) can now beat them, typically not even with heavy odds – a consequence of being able to analyze to depths over 40, but also because of the gestalt knowledge of a restricted possibilities surface (the game of chess), embedded within the datasets accreted within the engines over time. Chess engine decisions are now very often inexplicable to humans until subsequent exhaustive analysis reveals the secrets. The top human players though, all learn strategies from the engines, especially the world champion himself – a flip from the early days of AI chess programming, when human created chess principles were programmed into chess algorithms.
Human chess now thrives by making the conscious decision to eschew the help of machine intelligence during play – because it looks for the best human chess players, not the best team of programmers.
That’s an interesting contribution, thanks. When you refer to a “restricted possibilities surface” i can’t help but ask how the human brain conjugates original ideas that don’t involve such a surface.
One could argue that the world itself constitutes such a surface on a vast scale, and therefore that any originality a human brain derives from being alive within it is therefore restricted to that surface; i’m not so sure about that. But certainly, food for thought.
The playout of chess operates over a surface whose rules of operation combined with the rules of operation of the pieces, constitute a ‘universe’ – a very simple zero sum universe, but nevertheless complete. We can invent progressively more complex surfaces with more complex rules resulting in more complex universes – but none of that is necessary – as the Game of Life (Conway) shows, very simple surfaces with very simple rules can result in vastly complex universes, all the way to creating Universal Turing Machines (aka general purpose computers) and self replacing entities (aka life). This has all been demonstrated.
There *is* however a difference between virtually created universes, and the real universe we inhabit. All algorithmically generated universes are, ipso facto, completely deterministic, whereas *our* universe is seemingly subject to (quantum) indeterminacy at very small scales, which eventually percolates up to the macro world in very specific ways. I *want* to believe this difference is fundamental to the way human brains are different from algorithms, but there is nothing anyone has ever shown that this is incontrovertibly the case. On the opposite side, evidence keeps stacking up that there is in fact nothing that algorithms can’t do that the human brain can do.
I agree with you final thesis – sort of.
How quantum uncertainty impacts the macro world is something vastly greater minds than mine have grappled with. I know Einstien wasn’t keen on the idea being very much a determinist.
However, we still do not have a fundamental understanding of how consciousness functions beyond hypoethses relating to it being an emergent property of high levels of parallel complexity.
I briefly studied genetic algorithms at university and it was a definite mind-blow moment. Yes, they require somebody to wind the clock work up, as it were, but what comes out the other end is often far beyond imagination.
I agree with you final thesis – sort of.
How quantum uncertainty impacts the macro world is something vastly greater minds than mine have grappled with. I know Einstien wasn’t keen on the idea being very much a determinist.
However, we still do not have a fundamental understanding of how consciousness functions beyond hypoethses relating to it being an emergent property of high levels of parallel complexity.
I briefly studied genetic algorithms at university and it was a definite mind-blow moment. Yes, they require somebody to wind the clock work up, as it were, but what comes out the other end is often far beyond imagination.
The playout of chess operates over a surface whose rules of operation combined with the rules of operation of the pieces, constitute a ‘universe’ – a very simple zero sum universe, but nevertheless complete. We can invent progressively more complex surfaces with more complex rules resulting in more complex universes – but none of that is necessary – as the Game of Life (Conway) shows, very simple surfaces with very simple rules can result in vastly complex universes, all the way to creating Universal Turing Machines (aka general purpose computers) and self replacing entities (aka life). This has all been demonstrated.
There *is* however a difference between virtually created universes, and the real universe we inhabit. All algorithmically generated universes are, ipso facto, completely deterministic, whereas *our* universe is seemingly subject to (quantum) indeterminacy at very small scales, which eventually percolates up to the macro world in very specific ways. I *want* to believe this difference is fundamental to the way human brains are different from algorithms, but there is nothing anyone has ever shown that this is incontrovertibly the case. On the opposite side, evidence keeps stacking up that there is in fact nothing that algorithms can’t do that the human brain can do.
That’s an interesting contribution, thanks. When you refer to a “restricted possibilities surface” i can’t help but ask how the human brain conjugates original ideas that don’t involve such a surface.
One could argue that the world itself constitutes such a surface on a vast scale, and therefore that any originality a human brain derives from being alive within it is therefore restricted to that surface; i’m not so sure about that. But certainly, food for thought.
“…Artificial intelligence is capable only of “learning” from the past, from what already exists. It cannot create anything new…”
This is plain flat not true – illustrated by chess engines (AlphaZero, Leela, Stockfish etc) who display an interesting lesson in this context. The world Chess champion, Magnus Carlsen, has a rating of around 2860, the highest of anyone in history. The top chess engines are 3700+, and no human (or group of humans) can now beat them, typically not even with heavy odds – a consequence of being able to analyze to depths over 40, but also because of the gestalt knowledge of a restricted possibilities surface (the game of chess), embedded within the datasets accreted within the engines over time. Chess engine decisions are now very often inexplicable to humans until subsequent exhaustive analysis reveals the secrets. The top human players though, all learn strategies from the engines, especially the world champion himself – a flip from the early days of AI chess programming, when human created chess principles were programmed into chess algorithms.
Human chess now thrives by making the conscious decision to eschew the help of machine intelligence during play – because it looks for the best human chess players, not the best team of programmers.
Wait until they remove so much of the past, that there will be only a narrow substrate of woke ideas at base?
Think of the medical ideas that will result, due to “racist” or “cis-gender” material being expunged?
Andrew Horsman
1 year ago
Artificial intelligence is capable only of “learning” from the past, from what already exists. It cannot create anything new. As humans become more machine like and unlearn skills, it’s inevitable that the spark of creative genius will get snuffed out. All we are getting now is a recursive, derivative regurgitation of what he gone before, a culture on auto-pilot, reinforced by the monopolistic economics of mass adopted technology, with nothing guiding it other than its own internally flawed and inherently contradictory belief systems.
It’s going to take some good old-fashioned human courage to put a stop to it and bring some order back into the atrophying cultural chaos that post-modernism and the worship of the self has plunged us all into. Good old Friedrich is no doubt laughing his nihilistic virtual head off in his IRL grave. It may get a lot worse before it gets better.
Dominic A
1 year ago
Everyone now is having their 15 minutes of fame, and making a movie, book, album or social movement around it. The result is that there is glut, like never before, of books, opinions, news sources, albums, tv series and films. Most is average (haha), and there is plenty of very good and very bad – the Bell Curve has not gone away. Rather than watching and then bemoaning the inevitable failures and daftness, we need to get better at bespoke selection. Consuming the crap fills your head with crap.
Dominic A
1 year ago
Everyone now is having their 15 minutes of fame, and making a movie, book, album or social movement around it. The result is that there is glut, like never before, of books, opinions, news sources, albums, tv series and films. Most is average (haha), and there is plenty of very good and very bad – the Bell Curve has not gone away. Rather than watching and then bemoaning the inevitable failures and daftness, we need to get better at bespoke selection. Consuming the crap fills your head with crap.
Simon Blanchard
1 year ago
My job has certainly been dumbed down since computers became involved. Yes, nearly all the procedures can be performed more quickly, but most of the fun’s gone, now that the tactile element has been removed (along with the smell of Cow Gum).
Simon Blanchard
1 year ago
My job has certainly been dumbed down since computers became involved. Yes, nearly all the procedures can be performed more quickly, but most of the fun’s gone, now that the tactile element has been removed (along with the smell of Cow Gum).
Another bull’s-eye from Ms. Harrington! But just two quick points:
There is a relatively small subset of people who knit, sew, forge iron, create fine woodworking with hand tools, build boats, etc. I find them on YouTube. Their videos are deeply satisfying to me, and somehow reassuring. The physically embodied world still exists, even if the culture at large isn’t interested. (As an introduction you could try “Mr. Chickadee”; he posts voiceless videos of his beautiful woodworking projects, all made the old-fashioned way.)
Secondly, the price of housing has destroyed the weird, radical fringe of art created by kids who just don’t care. And the barely habitable and completely illegal lofts and basements that we all lived in have long since been turned into high-end “residences”. I’m thinking of the strange, fizzing, jumping world around CBGBs back in its prime; the bands, the zeroxed posters, the crappy costumes, etc. Because, obviously, with names like “The Dead Kennedys” or “Teenage Jesus and the Jerks”, no one was worrying too much about paying the rent.
Last edited 1 year ago by laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
1 year ago
Another bull’s-eye from Ms. Harrington! But just two quick points:
There is a relatively small subset of people who knit, sew, forge iron, create fine woodworking with hand tools, build boats, etc. I find them on YouTube. Their videos are deeply satisfying to me, and somehow reassuring. The physically embodied world still exists, even if the culture at large isn’t interested. (As an introduction you could try “Mr. Chickadee”; he posts voiceless videos of his beautiful woodworking projects, all made the old-fashioned way.)
Secondly, the price of housing has destroyed the weird, radical fringe of art created by kids who just don’t care. And the barely habitable and completely illegal lofts and basements that we all lived in have long since been turned into high-end “residences”. I’m thinking of the strange, fizzing, jumping world around CBGBs back in its prime; the bands, the zeroxed posters, the crappy costumes, etc. Because, obviously, with names like “The Dead Kennedys” or “Teenage Jesus and the Jerks”, no one was worrying too much about paying the rent.
Last edited 1 year ago by laurence scaduto
Benjamin Greco
1 year ago
What a lot of nonsense. There is a very simple reason for all the remakes and reboots in today’s culture. There has never been a time in human history when so much content has been required. It is hard to fill hundreds of TV channels and the internet with quality, creative content. The requirement to fill so much space is also why there is so much nonsense written about insignificant ephemera and why we argue endlessly about unimportant things like M&Ms.
One of the themes of the recent Oscar nominated film the Banshees of Inisherin is how we get so caught up in our own foolishness that we miss the real injustices and suffering happening right in front of us. That is how the world feels today and it is the direct result of the explosion of content required to keep us diverted from reality in an age of information overload.
Quite right! If it weren’t for Mary being the author, I would have never read the piece. We are on the verge of World War and we are talking about cartoon M&M’s?
Mary. I am almost convinced that her daughter already could think me out of the park, with Mary contributing to her genes, as well as raising her.
Her brain seems vastly superior than almost anyone’s. I wonder just how small-brained most of us seem to her? Is it like most of us seeming to have Down’s Syndrome?
I wish I could get a brain transfusion from her!;- )
Sorry, fed off your comment’s praise for Mary. I can’t write an independent comment here, for some reason, but could only reply.
Truly. Remember all the concern in February, 2022, about Western involvement triggering a nuclear war?
That talk went out the window. Now it is back to 1990s Democratic Nation Building, apparently. Us against the Ruskies.
I think we are already centipedes, and the AI is already good enough that we don’t see it. Why else do the “elites” wanna follow Joe into war? Why are they so invested in Joe’s business dealings in the Ukraine? Or whatever. Or is it simply fan-boying of Zelensky? Look at all the actors and prime ministers dying to be in his arms.
Maybe they all have stock in “green” arms? ‘Cause arms are good if they are for Ukraine, and good is green in an intersectional gestalt /yoga/ ommm way? And with positivity and progressiveness and BL M there is no room for nuclear war?!!
But wait! Climate Change, DIE, TransLGBQ factors! Will the Elites ever reveal their Theory Of Everything?
Mary. I am almost convinced that her daughter already could think me out of the park, with Mary contributing to her genes, as well as raising her.
Her brain seems vastly superior than almost anyone’s. I wonder just how small-brained most of us seem to her? Is it like most of us seeming to have Down’s Syndrome?
I wish I could get a brain transfusion from her!;- )
Sorry, fed off your comment’s praise for Mary. I can’t write an independent comment here, for some reason, but could only reply.
Truly. Remember all the concern in February, 2022, about Western involvement triggering a nuclear war?
That talk went out the window. Now it is back to 1990s Democratic Nation Building, apparently. Us against the Ruskies.
I think we are already centipedes, and the AI is already good enough that we don’t see it. Why else do the “elites” wanna follow Joe into war? Why are they so invested in Joe’s business dealings in the Ukraine? Or whatever. Or is it simply fan-boying of Zelensky? Look at all the actors and prime ministers dying to be in his arms.
Maybe they all have stock in “green” arms? ‘Cause arms are good if they are for Ukraine, and good is green in an intersectional gestalt /yoga/ ommm way? And with positivity and progressiveness and BL M there is no room for nuclear war?!!
But wait! Climate Change, DIE, TransLGBQ factors! Will the Elites ever reveal their Theory Of Everything?
Quite right! If it weren’t for Mary being the author, I would have never read the piece. We are on the verge of World War and we are talking about cartoon M&M’s?
Benjamin Greco
1 year ago
What a lot of nonsense. There is a very simple reason for all the remakes and reboots in today’s culture. There has never been a time in human history when so much content has been required. It is hard to fill hundreds of TV channels and the internet with quality, creative content. The requirement to fill so much space is also why there is so much nonsense written about insignificant ephemera and why we argue endlessly about unimportant things like M&Ms.
One of the themes of the recent Oscar nominated film the Banshees of Inisherin is how we get so caught up in our own foolishness that we miss the real injustices and suffering happening right in front of us. That is how the world feels today and it is the direct result of the explosion of content required to keep us diverted from reality in an age of information overload.
Robbie K
1 year ago
Great observations by Mary as always. Is this not also our own fault too though? If we subscribe to such products then more will be produced. The car reference is very valid, I have a new Golf GTi, but it’s a joyless experience, dampened with needless tech that irritates and baffles. If there’s an alternative made without the nonsense I’ll get that next, if not, I’ll be getting an older car.
My heart goes out to you. My Golf GTi (RIP) was an 80s model. The first time I drove a computerised car (Merc.A series Sport) the warning beeps so startled me I reversed into a stone wall. Driving, like so much else nowadays, is creepingly depleting our self-reliance and atrophying our brains. And taking the joy out of it – the joy of being alive.
What about the joys of changing your own oil or fiddling under the hood? Then there is the diminution in road trips, Sunday drives and cruising, due to the cost of fuel. Ah, well, we save the environment—I mean fuel—for all the people who gotta jet here and there. They’ll send us an Instagram or a press conference, as consolation to us plebs.
Are you actualy saying that you are not ‘allowed’ to wash or wax your car now?
Is that your serious ‘cry for freedom’? Dear God, how oppressed you are; one day, your people will rise up! The Greatest Generation!
Are you actualy saying that you are not ‘allowed’ to wash or wax your car now?
Is that your serious ‘cry for freedom’? Dear God, how oppressed you are; one day, your people will rise up! The Greatest Generation!
What about the joys of changing your own oil or fiddling under the hood? Then there is the diminution in road trips, Sunday drives and cruising, due to the cost of fuel. Ah, well, we save the environment—I mean fuel—for all the people who gotta jet here and there. They’ll send us an Instagram or a press conference, as consolation to us plebs.
My heart goes out to you. My Golf GTi (RIP) was an 80s model. The first time I drove a computerised car (Merc.A series Sport) the warning beeps so startled me I reversed into a stone wall. Driving, like so much else nowadays, is creepingly depleting our self-reliance and atrophying our brains. And taking the joy out of it – the joy of being alive.
Robbie K
1 year ago
Great observations by Mary as always. Is this not also our own fault too though? If we subscribe to such products then more will be produced. The car reference is very valid, I have a new Golf GTi, but it’s a joyless experience, dampened with needless tech that irritates and baffles. If there’s an alternative made without the nonsense I’ll get that next, if not, I’ll be getting an older car.
JOHN BINGHAM
1 year ago
We are always at peril of being imprisoned by our thoughts, or rather by the thought that our thoughts are everything. The digital world has increased this risk by steadily removing the disconfirmation of the real world. To be imprisoned by one’s own thoughts is hell or what Buddhists refer to as suffering.
JOHN BINGHAM
1 year ago
We are always at peril of being imprisoned by our thoughts, or rather by the thought that our thoughts are everything. The digital world has increased this risk by steadily removing the disconfirmation of the real world. To be imprisoned by one’s own thoughts is hell or what Buddhists refer to as suffering.
A S
1 year ago
Wow .. another superb piece of writing from Mary. The one thing I worry about is how humans are losing their tactile ability .. the very thing that makes us human. We don’t even seem to think about the body-mind connection (in that order) and how digitization is eroding our intelligence and skills. I watched a very interesting podcast of Lex Friedman and Neal Stephenson – Neal was talking about how he likes to build things in his workshop after designing them using some CAD software. Lex (and this may have just been to engage him in debate) asked why he needed to actually build it and suggested that just leaving it designed and “making” in a meta/AI universe and showing it to his friends in the meta world would be just as satisfying. Neal didn’t really take the bait as he seems generally congenial and reserved guy, but I haven’t been able to stop thinking about that exchange. Wow, so this is what young people think .. no wonder everyone is dissatisfied, anxious, and aimless.
A S
1 year ago
Wow .. another superb piece of writing from Mary. The one thing I worry about is how humans are losing their tactile ability .. the very thing that makes us human. We don’t even seem to think about the body-mind connection (in that order) and how digitization is eroding our intelligence and skills. I watched a very interesting podcast of Lex Friedman and Neal Stephenson – Neal was talking about how he likes to build things in his workshop after designing them using some CAD software. Lex (and this may have just been to engage him in debate) asked why he needed to actually build it and suggested that just leaving it designed and “making” in a meta/AI universe and showing it to his friends in the meta world would be just as satisfying. Neal didn’t really take the bait as he seems generally congenial and reserved guy, but I haven’t been able to stop thinking about that exchange. Wow, so this is what young people think .. no wonder everyone is dissatisfied, anxious, and aimless.
Jack Martin Leith
1 year ago
There’s another force at work here in addition to the one described by Mary Harrington: the orthodoxy of corporate innovation. One of its core principles is that every new idea is simply a combination of existing ideas. This is called combinatorial creativity. and in the organisational world it’s pretty much the only kind of creativity. Idea generation (aka ideation) sessions based on Osborn-style brainstorming and other diverge-then-converge methods work by flushing already existing ideas from the recesses of participants’ memories. In the 1930s, Napoleon Hill, author of Think and Grow Rich, used the term “synthetic imagination” to label the faculty responsible producing derivative ideas. He contrasted this with “creative imagination”, by which we produce truly new ideas. Let’s have more of it.
Last edited 1 year ago by Jack Martin Leith
Jack Martin Leith
1 year ago
There’s another force at work here in addition to the one described by Mary Harrington: the orthodoxy of corporate innovation. One of its core principles is that every new idea is simply a combination of existing ideas. This is called combinatorial creativity. and in the organisational world it’s pretty much the only kind of creativity. Idea generation (aka ideation) sessions based on Osborn-style brainstorming and other diverge-then-converge methods work by flushing already existing ideas from the recesses of participants’ memories. In the 1930s, Napoleon Hill, author of Think and Grow Rich, used the term “synthetic imagination” to label the faculty responsible producing derivative ideas. He contrasted this with “creative imagination”, by which we produce truly new ideas. Let’s have more of it.
Last edited 1 year ago by Jack Martin Leith
Steve Murray
1 year ago
I’ve just realised: it is, of course, Groundhog Day in the US!
Mary sneaked a reference in; i’m surprised our US commenters didn’t pick up on it.
I’ve just realised: it is, of course, Groundhog Day in the US!
Mary sneaked a reference in; i’m surprised our US commenters didn’t pick up on it.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
James Anthony Seyforth
1 year ago
Constraint is the king of creativity… Well done Mary Harrington for such an eloquent elaboration of this topic.
My example is from the Baroque era: the various french inspired dance forms such as prelude, gigue, sarabande, double etc. Are key structuring principles across swathes of classical music, from the Renaissance to early classical era. These were liberating constraints on musical creativity because they locked you into a defined rhythm, to a general set of coordinates for repetition and movement as well as a certain spirit united across the musical world.
Many of Bach’s greatest works pivot around these dance forms, some such work being the cello suites, the lute suites and of course there is a beyond. Other greats are S.L. Weiss, John Dowland, Handel, Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Robert de Visée and many more. These people invented modern music through these constraints.
The only constraints we see now are boom boom boom, tick tick tick, whine whine whine, talk talk talk … As in everything modern the loss of substance is from either from lack of, or pure lousy constraint.
But really, the wider issue is that those that know better are either powerless against the mob are too cowardly to buck it. Artists are only capable in a brave world, where suffering exists and I believe artists don’t know how to suffer for their art or their convictions anymore. Bach suffered, joyed and produced immensely, but most of us just want happiness, mediocrity and then a long slow death…
James Anthony Seyforth
1 year ago
Constraint is the king of creativity… Well done Mary Harrington for such an eloquent elaboration of this topic.
My example is from the Baroque era: the various french inspired dance forms such as prelude, gigue, sarabande, double etc. Are key structuring principles across swathes of classical music, from the Renaissance to early classical era. These were liberating constraints on musical creativity because they locked you into a defined rhythm, to a general set of coordinates for repetition and movement as well as a certain spirit united across the musical world.
Many of Bach’s greatest works pivot around these dance forms, some such work being the cello suites, the lute suites and of course there is a beyond. Other greats are S.L. Weiss, John Dowland, Handel, Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Robert de Visée and many more. These people invented modern music through these constraints.
The only constraints we see now are boom boom boom, tick tick tick, whine whine whine, talk talk talk … As in everything modern the loss of substance is from either from lack of, or pure lousy constraint.
But really, the wider issue is that those that know better are either powerless against the mob are too cowardly to buck it. Artists are only capable in a brave world, where suffering exists and I believe artists don’t know how to suffer for their art or their convictions anymore. Bach suffered, joyed and produced immensely, but most of us just want happiness, mediocrity and then a long slow death…
polidori redux
1 year ago
“the future has disappeared”.
Is that like the end of history? We should be so lucky. It’s coming for you!
How would you have felt about the world in 1939, Polidori?
Would you rather be living then? I assume, from your rants here, that you think it was a great time, at least, far better than now.
Jokes are usually funny.
You may wish to try that in teh future. Don’t get all upset because your joke isn’t funny and you don’t understand what Fukyama was saying. You are coming across as a bit of a cry baby!
He’s a man – and almost no-one disagrees with that – especially on this page. Not even Nicola Sturgeon! As ever, there are a tiny cabal of activists who think otherwise – though Fox news and others want you to believe it’s a large, powerful, threatening mob (unlike the Jan 6 lot, who were of course a silly group of pranksters, in no way conencted to anything powerful – except the ones who were deep state/FBI plants) – so that they can better sell you stuff. Some people have a ring in their nose with the engraving, ‘property of woke inc’, others, ‘property of the tabloids’. Most avoid either.
He’s a man – and almost no-one disagrees with that – especially on this page. Not even Nicola Sturgeon! As ever, there are a tiny cabal of activists who think otherwise – though Fox news and others want you to believe it’s a large, powerful, threatening mob (unlike the Jan 6 lot, who were of course a silly group of pranksters, in no way conencted to anything powerful – except the ones who were deep state/FBI plants) – so that they can better sell you stuff. Some people have a ring in their nose with the engraving, ‘property of woke inc’, others, ‘property of the tabloids’. Most avoid either.
Jokes are usually funny.
You may wish to try that in teh future. Don’t get all upset because your joke isn’t funny and you don’t understand what Fukyama was saying. You are coming across as a bit of a cry baby!
Another one cancelling dissenting opinions. This site gets more snowflakey by the day, Charlie. Maybe they should change the name from the clearly mistaken ‘UnHerd’ to ‘Safespace’, then you could all sit together and have a good old cry, safe from any nasty people laughing at your performative victimhood.
By the way, you’re clearly very pleased with this term “Plastic Paddy” of yours- what does it mean? Is it just a short-trousered euphemism for ‘Irish’, or does it mean more than that? I’m sure Plastic Padding used to be a car body repair brand.
Sadly I cannot claim credit for the expression‘Plastic Paddy’ but surely the meaning is clear enough? I do however think I may have been one of the first to use the similar expression ‘Kerrygold Republic’.
Incidentally nobody is “cancelling “ anybody (whatever that means!).
It is just a case of “I can resist everything except temptation” as Wilde so beautifully put it, and Mr McNeil is just TOO tempting a target as I am sure you will agree?
Anyway “two pints of Black & Tan Mr Holland, and make it snappy!”
Joe Biden is a famous Plastic Paddy.
Here is a succinct definition for you:
“A person who retains a strong sense of Irish cultural identity despite not having been born in Ireland or being of only partial (if any) Irish descent; generally used in reference to Irish-English or Irish-Americans. Perceived as irritating poseurs by Irish nationals.”
Surprised you didn’t know John.
Thanks Chas!
So you used this term to describe someone solely on account of a surname that sounded a bit ‘Irish’ to you, with no reference to anything else in the context of the debate or anything they said.
That’s quite wonderfully stupid! Well done. I consider myself “educated” in the mind-set of the happily idiotic. It’s always good to plumb the depths….
Thanks Chas!
So you used this term to describe someone solely on account of a surname that sounded a bit ‘Irish’ to you, with no reference to anything else in the context of the debate or anything they said.
That’s quite wonderfully stupid! Well done. I consider myself “educated” in the mind-set of the happily idiotic. It’s always good to plumb the depths….
..And yet in the context of the thread, there was no connection whatsoever except for a name that might have had an Irish connection. Nothing to do with anything said, or anything to do with the actual argument.
So- ‘I can’t come up with a meaningful argument, but your name is a bit Irish-sounding’.
Well done. Another victory for the Socratic method. Well done chaps!
..And yet in the context of the thread, there was no connection whatsoever except for a name that might have had an Irish connection. Nothing to do with anything said, or anything to do with the actual argument.
So- ‘I can’t come up with a meaningful argument, but your name is a bit Irish-sounding’.
Well done. Another victory for the Socratic method. Well done chaps!
Sadly I cannot claim credit for the expression‘Plastic Paddy’ but surely the meaning is clear enough? I do however think I may have been one of the first to use the similar expression ‘Kerrygold Republic’.
Incidentally nobody is “cancelling “ anybody (whatever that means!).
It is just a case of “I can resist everything except temptation” as Wilde so beautifully put it, and Mr McNeil is just TOO tempting a target as I am sure you will agree?
Anyway “two pints of Black & Tan Mr Holland, and make it snappy!”
Joe Biden is a famous Plastic Paddy.
Here is a succinct definition for you:
“A person who retains a strong sense of Irish cultural identity despite not having been born in Ireland or being of only partial (if any) Irish descent; generally used in reference to Irish-English or Irish-Americans. Perceived as irritating poseurs by Irish nationals.”
Surprised you didn’t know John.
Another one cancelling dissenting opinions. This site gets more snowflakey by the day, Charlie. Maybe they should change the name from the clearly mistaken ‘UnHerd’ to ‘Safespace’, then you could all sit together and have a good old cry, safe from any nasty people laughing at your performative victimhood.
By the way, you’re clearly very pleased with this term “Plastic Paddy” of yours- what does it mean? Is it just a short-trousered euphemism for ‘Irish’, or does it mean more than that? I’m sure Plastic Padding used to be a car body repair brand.
How would you have felt about the world in 1939, Polidori?
Would you rather be living then? I assume, from your rants here, that you think it was a great time, at least, far better than now.
Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
polidori redux
1 year ago
“the future has disappeared”.
Is that like the end of history? We should be so lucky. It’s coming for you!
Robert Hochbaum
1 year ago
Hmm. Seems like Mary has been channeling the works of Iain McGilchrist. It’s that darned left hemisphere, Mary. And it is only going to get worse!
Haha! And perhaps Rick Rubin (Def Jam records etc) too. If you’ve not yet read The Creative Act, it’s an inspiring and refreshing bit of writing. Neil Strauss (remember him?) made some sort of contribution. It’s also a beautiful object.
I looked up The Creative Act and saw the subtitle is ‘A Way Of Being’. Interesting. I will definitely check it out since my personal path into trying to understand things has always been music, even before I understood why. Thanks for the tip!
I looked up The Creative Act and saw the subtitle is ‘A Way Of Being’. Interesting. I will definitely check it out since my personal path into trying to understand things has always been music, even before I understood why. Thanks for the tip!
Haha! And perhaps Rick Rubin (Def Jam records etc) too. If you’ve not yet read The Creative Act, it’s an inspiring and refreshing bit of writing. Neil Strauss (remember him?) made some sort of contribution. It’s also a beautiful object.
Robert Hochbaum
1 year ago
Hmm. Seems like Mary has been channeling the works of Iain McGilchrist. It’s that darned left hemisphere, Mary. And it is only going to get worse!
Last edited 1 year ago by Robert Hochbaum
D Walsh
1 year ago
Goldeneye on the Switch. COOL
D Walsh
1 year ago
Goldeneye on the Switch. COOL
Dumetrius
1 year ago
The coprophagy scene is sparkling with bon mots, verve & joie-de-vivre. Don’t know what the writer’s on about.
Dumetrius
1 year ago
The coprophagy scene is sparkling with bon mots, verve & joie-de-vivre. Don’t know what the writer’s on about.
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Does anyone know where to find the “great deal of subterranean argument online about the whys and wherefores of creating ‘dissident art'” that Mary refers to? In my naivete, or impatience, I googled “dissident art'” and predictably the results were ads for Che posters and so on, or else identitarian “art”.
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Does anyone know where to find the “great deal of subterranean argument online about the whys and wherefores of creating ‘dissident art'” that Mary refers to? In my naivete, or impatience, I googled “dissident art'” and predictably the results were ads for Che posters and so on, or else identitarian “art”.
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Of course anyone who thinks that Tucker Carlson stands for the truth is already too irretrievably stupid to understand anything…
What you “think” and what is actually true are rarely the same thing.
It is literally there is black and white:
“He speaks for many in standing for the truth”
Is your reading comprehension that bad?
OK then, why don’t you explain how the words “He (Tucker Carlson) speaks for many in standing for the truth” doesn’t mean that the writer thinks that Tucker Carlson stands for the truth.
This should entertaining!!!
“doesn’t mean that the writer thinks that Tucker Carlson stands for the truth.” In that particular instance. As in stopped clocks.
Spectrum boy is getting overexcited.
Goodbye.
‘He stands for many in standing for the truth”, doesn’t mean he stands for the truth.
Of course. That makes total sense. Thank you for explaining it so lucidly, and for not demeaning yourself with silly slurs about people’s supposed mental conditions. You are an exemplar to us all.
‘He stands for many in standing for the truth”, doesn’t mean he stands for the truth.
Of course. That makes total sense. Thank you for explaining it so lucidly, and for not demeaning yourself with silly slurs about people’s supposed mental conditions. You are an exemplar to us all.
“doesn’t mean that the writer thinks that Tucker Carlson stands for the truth.” In that particular instance. As in stopped clocks.
Spectrum boy is getting overexcited.
Goodbye.
OK then, why don’t you explain how the words “He (Tucker Carlson) speaks for many in standing for the truth” doesn’t mean that the writer thinks that Tucker Carlson stands for the truth.
This should entertaining!!!
Like everybody else Tucker does not stand for the truth all the time. Nor does he, like everyone else, never stand for the truth. The question is when he does and that is the subjective part. Personally, I think he stands for the truth depressingly frequently.
Like everybody else Tucker does not stand for the truth all the time. Nor does he, like everyone else, never stand for the truth. The question is when he does and that is the subjective part. Personally, I think he stands for the truth depressingly frequently.
What you “think” and what is actually true are rarely the same thing.
It is literally there is black and white:
“He speaks for many in standing for the truth”
Is your reading comprehension that bad?
Arnold Toynbee in his ” Study of History” warned that once the elites lost their creativity this caused the collapse of civilisations. Polly Toynbee is the grand daughter of AT. QED.
Philip Clayton
1 year ago
“But there might be a way forward, and it lies in the germ of sense in Carlson’s protest against the “spokescandies”. He speaks for many in standing for the truth that the world isn’t actually weightless and radically liquid.”
Either I don’t understand English or this is bizarre. So if I, and millions of others oppose Carlson’s endless lies and his extreme right-wing stance on ANY subject, we are apparently weightless?
I clicked the link to the comment about Black History Month being more important than water and saw a Tik Tok video lasting just over 40 seconds. The person making that statement was a very young kid, around 14/15 who is either one of the stupidest people on the planet or making a fabulous hoax video.
What could be more weightless than taking such an object and regarding it seriously enough to buttress your argument there is something wrong with culture?
I do think that drawing full-length cartoons by hand lead to a more ‘artistic’ product and I have long complained about the lack of depth of focus in computer generated products; and not just cartoons; the hand drawn simply look better. My other objection is that when they took so long to produce they did not appear frquently whereas now the market is flooded.
But nobody except our churlish author would deny that there have still been some great cartoon films: The Incredibles, Shrek, Toy Story and quite a few more. The major difference between these and Disney originals is they became ‘franchises’.
Mcdonalds and dozens of ‘restaurants’ (for which read food factories) are franchises; are they weightless, while indisputably repetitive? The Saturday morning serials I watched in the cinema were repetitive and franchises.
As for the idea that somehow nobody now is making original, or significant art, some of which may not be appreciated until decades later, that’s for the birds. Those with only one wing, on the right.
Philip Clayton
1 year ago
“But there might be a way forward, and it lies in the germ of sense in Carlson’s protest against the “spokescandies”. He speaks for many in standing for the truth that the world isn’t actually weightless and radically liquid.”
Either I don’t understand English or this is bizarre. So if I, and millions of others oppose Carlson’s endless lies and his extreme right-wing stance on ANY subject, we are apparently weightless?
I clicked the link to the comment about Black History Month being more important than water and saw a Tik Tok video lasting just over 40 seconds. The person making that statement was a very young kid, around 14/15 who is either one of the stupidest people on the planet or making a fabulous hoax video.
What could be more weightless than taking such an object and regarding it seriously enough to buttress your argument there is something wrong with culture?
I do think that drawing full-length cartoons by hand lead to a more ‘artistic’ product and I have long complained about the lack of depth of focus in computer generated products; and not just cartoons; the hand drawn simply look better. My other objection is that when they took so long to produce they did not appear frquently whereas now the market is flooded.
But nobody except our churlish author would deny that there have still been some great cartoon films: The Incredibles, Shrek, Toy Story and quite a few more. The major difference between these and Disney originals is they became ‘franchises’.
Mcdonalds and dozens of ‘restaurants’ (for which read food factories) are franchises; are they weightless, while indisputably repetitive? The Saturday morning serials I watched in the cinema were repetitive and franchises.
As for the idea that somehow nobody now is making original, or significant art, some of which may not be appreciated until decades later, that’s for the birds. Those with only one wing, on the right.
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
The most Unherd article yet? Written specifically for the gammons to complain about how everything used to be better and “woke” has ruined the world?
Lots of very predictable comments below!
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
The most Unherd article yet? Written specifically for the gammons to complain about how everything used to be better and “woke” has ruined the world?
Lots of very predictable comments below!
John Holland
1 year ago
This writer specialises in specious attempts to rope together a range of arbitrary but fashionable cultural whinges into an utterly unconvincing and incoherent whole.
Somehow making bread, Covid and ‘woke’ adverts involving insufficiently sexy cartoon characters are cajoled into some vague attempt at a cultural critique along with all the standard Fox talking points, tied together with the unexamined and meaningless cliches about the “elites” and the creative “class”, as if the author’s day-job was taking in washing for the local miners, rather than making a nice living opining about the evils of the ‘laptop economy’, on her laptop. It’s merely a collection of all the usual go-to talking points of the ‘why-oh-why’ brigade desperately pretending to be a cogent argument about….something. She doesn’t seem to quite know what, beyond not much liking some stuff.
The fact that an article that thinks it’s making a stand against “cultural remixes” spends half its length regurgitating a recent unHerd article by Matthew Crawford is almost, but not quite, funny.
Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
This writer specialises in specious attempts to rope together a range of arbitrary but fashionable cultural whinges into an utterly unconvincing and incoherent whole.
Somehow making bread, Covid and ‘woke’ adverts involving insufficiently sexy cartoon characters are cajoled into some vague attempt at a cultural critique along with all the standard Fox talking points, tied together with the unexamined and meaningless cliches about the “elites” and the creative “class”, as if the author’s day-job was taking in washing for the local miners, rather than making a nice living opining about the evils of the ‘laptop economy’, on her laptop. It’s merely a collection of all the usual go-to talking points of the ‘why-oh-why’ brigade desperately pretending to be a cogent argument about….something. She doesn’t seem to quite know what, beyond not much liking some stuff.
The fact that an article that thinks it’s making a stand against “cultural remixes” spends half its length regurgitating a recent unHerd article by Matthew Crawford is almost, but not quite, funny.
Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
Jason Smith
1 year ago
I think this article is the perfect self referential example of itself. Yet another whey-faced intellectual moaning about how awful things are, and how much better they were in olden times. How wonderfully meta.
We oldies do not claim that the past was so good. We simply wanted a better future than the one that is developing around us – Woke dumbdown with 72 genders.
But Jason, things were better before the Rushdie Book Burn began a collapse in our creative freedoms and commitment to freedom of expression. Mary is ignoring the ideological dimension to the problem of ‘creativity’. Terfs harangued by the State Militia
Army squads monitoring us online in lockdown
It is not that our craven elite are freely making bad lazy commercial creative choices. Those days ended around 2010. They ARE the unitary sewn up centipede swilling aggressive toxic STATE diktat and credo shit into all our mouths.
“Terfs”?
Are you promoting the voices of feminists here, Walter? Surely not. It’s funny how the ‘exciting’ new culture wars around ‘gender’ are leading the sort of people who spent their lives regarding feminism (as one commenter here did the other day) a “cancer of society”, suddenly finding common cause with their old mortal enemy.
The guiding mantra of much on-line ‘opinionating’ now is ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. Still, you’re obviously enjoyig yourself, with all that “toxic STATE diktat and credo shit” (sic) into your mouth. Bon appetite!
He’s a man – and almost no-one disagrees with that – especially on this page. Not even Nicola Sturgeon! As ever, there are a tiny cabal of activists who think otherwise – though Fox news and others want you to believe it’s a large, powerful, threatening mob (unlike the Jan 6 lot, who were of course a silly group of pranksters, in no way conencted to anything powerful – except the ones who were deep state/FBI plants) – so that they can better sell you stuff. Some people have a ring in their nose with the engraving, ‘property of woke inc’, others, ‘property of the tabloids’. Most avoid either.
He’s a man – and almost no-one disagrees with that – especially on this page. Not even Nicola Sturgeon! As ever, there are a tiny cabal of activists who think otherwise – though Fox news and others want you to believe it’s a large, powerful, threatening mob (unlike the Jan 6 lot, who were of course a silly group of pranksters, in no way conencted to anything powerful – except the ones who were deep state/FBI plants) – so that they can better sell you stuff. Some people have a ring in their nose with the engraving, ‘property of woke inc’, others, ‘property of the tabloids’. Most avoid either.
“Terfs”?
Are you promoting the voices of feminists here, Walter? Surely not. It’s funny how the ‘exciting’ new culture wars around ‘gender’ are leading the sort of people who spent their lives regarding feminism (as one commenter here did the other day) a “cancer of society”, suddenly finding common cause with their old mortal enemy.
The guiding mantra of much on-line ‘opinionating’ now is ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. Still, you’re obviously enjoyig yourself, with all that “toxic STATE diktat and credo shit” (sic) into your mouth. Bon appetite!
You got there before me. A lot of Unherd commenters love to complain about Islington elites, overly-complicated acadamese, snowflakery etc, and profess a deep respect for history, small c conservatism, a sense of perspective, wisdom; and yet, like a moth to flame….
“Be careful who you choose as your enemy because that’s who you become most like. “
What is that response supposed to actually MEAN?
“Both”? Both who? And why do you think he has a “gender fixation”, given that it was your blathering about “72 genders”, or whatever odd fixation you have, in the first place.
Utter drivel. Try harder.
What is that response supposed to actually MEAN?
“Both”? Both who? And why do you think he has a “gender fixation”, given that it was your blathering about “72 genders”, or whatever odd fixation you have, in the first place.
Utter drivel. Try harder.
And yet this site is a “safe space”, which is exactly why anyone not following the herd mentality of reactionary fury with the modern world is greeted with such resentment.
You hate hearing a different opinion, it really seems to upset you- so you want to cancel them. Which is ironic.
There are thousands of websites that cater to your world view and very few that allow alternative ones. The fact that no-one here is clamoring to have your puerile comments removed goes to show how open-minded many Unherd commenters are. Conversely, rather than adding much to the topic at hand, you seem intent on ‘poisoning the well” by projecting your faults on to others.
There are thousands of websites that cater to your world view and very few that allow alternative ones. The fact that no-one here is clamoring to have your puerile comments removed goes to show how open-minded many Unherd commenters are. Conversely, rather than adding much to the topic at hand, you seem intent on ‘poisoning the well” by projecting your faults on to others.
And yet this site is a “safe space”, which is exactly why anyone not following the herd mentality of reactionary fury with the modern world is greeted with such resentment.
You hate hearing a different opinion, it really seems to upset you- so you want to cancel them. Which is ironic.
I just upvoted to reduce the deficit. Yes this is definitaley a case of – it was all better in the olden days- yes of course elements of culture are dumbed down, rapid introduction of technology and the massive increase in ‘content’, whether it be blogs, books, films has shortened our concentration span – some commentator only give a film ten minutes by the sounds of it- I understand from one of my sons studying film that this is why some films shoe horn everything into the first segment distorting the flow of events. But there is still much genuine creativity going on in all areas however it does not get commodified to the same extent therefore not made popular. – just ignore all the putrid crap. Or the article writer has chosen to ignore the good stuff which I still see a lot of and am amazed by.
oh yes and please if I ever get to time travel – never take me back to the 1970’s – surely that was the worst period culturally?
I just upvoted to reduce the deficit. Yes this is definitaley a case of – it was all better in the olden days- yes of course elements of culture are dumbed down, rapid introduction of technology and the massive increase in ‘content’, whether it be blogs, books, films has shortened our concentration span – some commentator only give a film ten minutes by the sounds of it- I understand from one of my sons studying film that this is why some films shoe horn everything into the first segment distorting the flow of events. But there is still much genuine creativity going on in all areas however it does not get commodified to the same extent therefore not made popular. – just ignore all the putrid crap. Or the article writer has chosen to ignore the good stuff which I still see a lot of and am amazed by.
oh yes and please if I ever get to time travel – never take me back to the 1970’s – surely that was the worst period culturally?
Do you really look forward to this?…..”while futurists predict a deluge of automated content in every field from art to pornography that will swamp our ability to tell who is human — or to care.”
To be honest, it is already difficult to tell who is human with all the facial “work” that people get and the piercing, tats, hair extensions and other various deformations employed in order to stand out in the crowd these days.
This is wonderful. -36! I don’t think I’ve ever had such a reaction to a comment. My point, for what it’s worth, is that this article complaining that everything nowadays is unoriginal and boring was in itself wholly unoriginal and boring. Also, I know we all suffer from nostalgia bias, believing that everything a few decades previously was much better; creativity, health, quality of life, etc, but even a cursory glance at the media of the time will confirm that it wasn’t, and everyone at that time believed that a few decades previous to them was a golden era. Po-faced Mary and many of the commenters here cannot look at the world today and see anything but incompetence, meanness and decay. But it really isn’t like that.
There are four things you can criticise on Unherd that will lead to rapid, multiple downticks – the Catholic church (traditional version); Brexit; Trump supporters, and Mary Harrington. Also any supportive comment on Biden, the EU, modernity, will draw rapid ire.
I can’t work out why this site- which has contributers of various ideologies- attracts such a uniformly and biliously reactionary type of commenter.
Despite the very name of the blog being a call to ‘unherd’-like thinking, the BTL comments are an excercise is lazy group-think, a ‘safe-space’ for right-wing ranters who invariable react to any alternative view with outrage and ‘cancelling’.
This comment will, of course, make them furious.
Well if the response upset you so much, don’t do it. Clutching pearls, as you said yourself.
You clearly come from a generation that believes it is entitled to respect – You ain’t. Welcome to the real world.
You are so off. I am not of the young generation, I am not ‘upset’. I am not left wing. I work in the private sector, own business, I enjoy real debate, not circle-jerks of the right or left.
You are so off. I am not of the young generation, I am not ‘upset’. I am not left wing. I work in the private sector, own business, I enjoy real debate, not circle-jerks of the right or left.
I can’t work out why this site- which has contributers of various ideologies- attracts such a uniformly and biliously reactionary type of commenter.
Despite the very name of the blog being a call to ‘unherd’-like thinking, the BTL comments are an excercise is lazy group-think, a ‘safe-space’ for right-wing ranters who invariable react to any alternative view with outrage and ‘cancelling’.
This comment will, of course, make them furious.
Well if the response upset you so much, don’t do it. Clutching pearls, as you said yourself.
You clearly come from a generation that believes it is entitled to respect – You ain’t. Welcome to the real world.
Yes, there is nostalgia but that is not a reason not to be critical of where things are going now. It is not nostalgia saying we have a lot less freedom and counting. It is not nostalgia saying writers are prescribed and muzzled.
Why do you care about downvotes anyway? Is it Teenage Insecurity Syndrome? Stop counting!
PS: I couldn’t give a pair of dingo’s kidneys what you think – about anything..
There are four things you can criticise on Unherd that will lead to rapid, multiple downticks – the Catholic church (traditional version); Brexit; Trump supporters, and Mary Harrington. Also any supportive comment on Biden, the EU, modernity, will draw rapid ire.
Yes, there is nostalgia but that is not a reason not to be critical of where things are going now. It is not nostalgia saying we have a lot less freedom and counting. It is not nostalgia saying writers are prescribed and muzzled.
Why do you care about downvotes anyway? Is it Teenage Insecurity Syndrome? Stop counting!
PS: I couldn’t give a pair of dingo’s kidneys what you think – about anything..
This article is an hilarious example of fake culture, despite its protestations to the contrary.
Essentially, it’s a long diatribe against contemporary computer-driven culture, the “laptop economy”, and the ‘elite classes’ who are using it to control our thoughts, in favour of the artisan’s life of ‘making’ and the deep satisfaction of physical work; written by someone who earns a living tapping out their personal ‘cultural’ opinions to online subscribers, who all then fire off on their laptops online messages of agreement, and being very angry with anyone who doesn’t (37 down votes and counting).
Very funny. Meta, indeed.
We oldies do not claim that the past was so good. We simply wanted a better future than the one that is developing around us – Woke dumbdown with 72 genders.
But Jason, things were better before the Rushdie Book Burn began a collapse in our creative freedoms and commitment to freedom of expression. Mary is ignoring the ideological dimension to the problem of ‘creativity’. Terfs harangued by the State Militia
Army squads monitoring us online in lockdown
It is not that our craven elite are freely making bad lazy commercial creative choices. Those days ended around 2010. They ARE the unitary sewn up centipede swilling aggressive toxic STATE diktat and credo shit into all our mouths.
You got there before me. A lot of Unherd commenters love to complain about Islington elites, overly-complicated acadamese, snowflakery etc, and profess a deep respect for history, small c conservatism, a sense of perspective, wisdom; and yet, like a moth to flame….
“Be careful who you choose as your enemy because that’s who you become most like. “
Do you really look forward to this?…..”while futurists predict a deluge of automated content in every field from art to pornography that will swamp our ability to tell who is human — or to care.”
To be honest, it is already difficult to tell who is human with all the facial “work” that people get and the piercing, tats, hair extensions and other various deformations employed in order to stand out in the crowd these days.
This is wonderful. -36! I don’t think I’ve ever had such a reaction to a comment. My point, for what it’s worth, is that this article complaining that everything nowadays is unoriginal and boring was in itself wholly unoriginal and boring. Also, I know we all suffer from nostalgia bias, believing that everything a few decades previously was much better; creativity, health, quality of life, etc, but even a cursory glance at the media of the time will confirm that it wasn’t, and everyone at that time believed that a few decades previous to them was a golden era. Po-faced Mary and many of the commenters here cannot look at the world today and see anything but incompetence, meanness and decay. But it really isn’t like that.
This article is an hilarious example of fake culture, despite its protestations to the contrary.
Essentially, it’s a long diatribe against contemporary computer-driven culture, the “laptop economy”, and the ‘elite classes’ who are using it to control our thoughts, in favour of the artisan’s life of ‘making’ and the deep satisfaction of physical work; written by someone who earns a living tapping out their personal ‘cultural’ opinions to online subscribers, who all then fire off on their laptops online messages of agreement, and being very angry with anyone who doesn’t (37 down votes and counting).
Very funny. Meta, indeed.
Jason Smith
1 year ago
I think this article is the perfect self referential example of itself. Yet another whey-faced intellectual moaning about how awful things are, and how much better they were in olden times. How wonderfully meta.
If you want an excellent example of this in practice just look at the state of modern corporate entertainment. You can rip off and reboot all the intellectual properties you want, dump as much money into it as possible, update it for “broad appeal”, have mass media shill it for hours on end, and throw in a heavy handed political message to ensure you cannot be criticized by the “right” people. What you cannot do is force people to spend money on poorly written garbage they have no interest in. Amazon’s half a billon dollar Lord of the Rings dumpster fire is a hilarious example of this in action.
My wife and I dro
pped our Netflix subscription of a decade more than a year ago. House-sitting our daughter’s house for several weeks we had the opportunity to sample what we’ve been missing. Not much, I’m afraid. We usually apply the ten minute test: when tempted to bail out earlier we’d hold on that long because some movies take that long to see signs it might be interesting. It was brutal. Some evenings we’d have to go through a dozen to find something remotely watchable. Other evenings we’d end up reading. It seems like they’re only making about half a dozen different movies now. The actors all look the same, act the same, think the same, have sex the same ways (who likes to stand up against a wall and have sex? Or on a kitchen counter? Really? When there’s furniture and beds ten feet away?) Most of the white nonstar males are evil or stupid.The women all went to Kung Fu ninja school. The only positive males are ethnic, usually old black men with white beards. And what’s with all the food samurai movies? Is that what heros have become now? Food prep artists? Food warriors? Don’t look, Achilles. We amuse ourselves by predicting plot outcomes but it’s way too easy. No challenge. If Netflix wanted an auto rating system, a good one would be the inverse of the percentage of it the members sat through before turning it off.
I’m exaggerating, of course. But not by much. The worthwhile movies we do find are almost always subtitled foreign movies (can’t stand dubbing). Or the rare Indie.
The BB riffed on the this lack of originality here: https://babylonbee.com/news/review-of-latest-marvel-movie-a-film-where-things-happen-heroes-fight-bad-guys-and-sometimes-there-are-jokes
Funnily enough, having ditched my tv licence 15 years ago and never having subscribed to Netflix, I had the identical experience house-sitting for my daughter a few months ago.
I have seen the same with books today. They all seem to be written by people who mastered fifth grade English and are more worried about social justice issues than about real real life lived by flawed people who are actually redeemable. Music has also become a lot less complex. No wonder AI can create music and essays as good as a real human—we have dumbed it all down so almost anyone can do it.
I have seen the same with books today. They all seem to be written by people who mastered fifth grade English and are more worried about social justice issues than about real real life lived by flawed people who are actually redeemable. Music has also become a lot less complex. No wonder AI can create music and essays as good as a real human—we have dumbed it all down so almost anyone can do it.
Funnily enough, I used tyo play this game with a series called Cold Case; sad, I know. I used to watch the first 15 minutes, when all the characters were introduced, and then fast forward to the end to find out who done it. Before I went to the end I would make my guess as to who the bad guy was, and rarely was I wrong. I had a simple formula – if it were a choice between a man or a woman, it was the man; if it were a black/white choice it was a white person, old/young it was the old person; gay/straight it was straight man; rich/poor it was rich; northener/southener it was the southerner (this was a US programme) – you see where I’m ging here. Occasionally I was surprised, but I should have been surprised more often.
Wow. Great system. What if it’s between a priest and a teacher? I always guess and am seldom wrong but have used a different method. The characters the introduce you to and focus on early are always red herrings. In the case of long series I count the episodes. It will be the character they come back to in the beginning of the last episode but who was only in the background earlier.
Wow. Great system. What if it’s between a priest and a teacher? I always guess and am seldom wrong but have used a different method. The characters the introduce you to and focus on early are always red herrings. In the case of long series I count the episodes. It will be the character they come back to in the beginning of the last episode but who was only in the background earlier.
I cancelled Netflix because of all the rubbish but caved in to watch more of Babylon Berlin.
Yes, Babylon Berlin is deeply great. I had unpleasant withdrawal symptoms when I finished the last episode.
Watch it on Cine.b. Babylong great, but can be confusing. Do read the books, much better and very different from the series.
Yes, Babylon Berlin is deeply great. I had unpleasant withdrawal symptoms when I finished the last episode.
Watch it on Cine.b. Babylong great, but can be confusing. Do read the books, much better and very different from the series.
I wholly agree with your perspective on Netflix (and Amazon Prime … and Disney … and … and … YAAAAAAWN!). The amount of formulaic, woke crap that is churned out is incredible. Inevitably, one becomes ‘acclimatised’ to being drenched in this egregious, insidious process that filters daily, hourly through our existence. Occasionally there are some good movies and series (many of the foreign language series (Turkish. Spanish, South American, Indian, etc.) that are really good and refreshingly devoid (mainly) of the relentless brainwashing ordure that is shovelled on us by the English language production houses. If one views films from 2010 backwards, one is struck by the general absence of woke content – and by how much better the quality of acting and production was in that bygone era. Coerced compliance with the modern orthodoxy, coupled with national electorates that are helpless in the face of this ‘revolution’ because political leadership has failed, has all but destroyed originality and free expression, not to mention quality.
We stopped watching terrestrial TV in the UK (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) years ago because the content, whether documentary or fictional, was so blatantly propagandistic. Even something as seemingly innocuous as BBC Radio 3, which used to focus on classical music, is now a numbing destruction, deconstruction and ‘decolonisation’ of several hundred years of wonderful music, to be replaced with joyless lectures about white supremacy and privilege; and a woke parade of ‘lost’ Black and Female composers who’ve been the ‘victims’ over the centuries of racist or misogynist oppression. Pale, Male and Stale is out. The canon is being detoxified; historical patriarchy is replaced with vicious matriarchy, and various other ‘modern’ perspectives.
No nook or cranny of our lives escapes this horrendous, remorseless onslaught.
Funnily enough, having ditched my tv licence 15 years ago and never having subscribed to Netflix, I had the identical experience house-sitting for my daughter a few months ago.
Funnily enough, I used tyo play this game with a series called Cold Case; sad, I know. I used to watch the first 15 minutes, when all the characters were introduced, and then fast forward to the end to find out who done it. Before I went to the end I would make my guess as to who the bad guy was, and rarely was I wrong. I had a simple formula – if it were a choice between a man or a woman, it was the man; if it were a black/white choice it was a white person, old/young it was the old person; gay/straight it was straight man; rich/poor it was rich; northener/southener it was the southerner (this was a US programme) – you see where I’m ging here. Occasionally I was surprised, but I should have been surprised more often.
I cancelled Netflix because of all the rubbish but caved in to watch more of Babylon Berlin.
I wholly agree with your perspective on Netflix (and Amazon Prime … and Disney … and … and … YAAAAAAWN!). The amount of formulaic, woke crap that is churned out is incredible. Inevitably, one becomes ‘acclimatised’ to being drenched in this egregious, insidious process that filters daily, hourly through our existence. Occasionally there are some good movies and series (many of the foreign language series (Turkish. Spanish, South American, Indian, etc.) that are really good and refreshingly devoid (mainly) of the relentless brainwashing ordure that is shovelled on us by the English language production houses. If one views films from 2010 backwards, one is struck by the general absence of woke content – and by how much better the quality of acting and production was in that bygone era. Coerced compliance with the modern orthodoxy, coupled with national electorates that are helpless in the face of this ‘revolution’ because political leadership has failed, has all but destroyed originality and free expression, not to mention quality.
We stopped watching terrestrial TV in the UK (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) years ago because the content, whether documentary or fictional, was so blatantly propagandistic. Even something as seemingly innocuous as BBC Radio 3, which used to focus on classical music, is now a numbing destruction, deconstruction and ‘decolonisation’ of several hundred years of wonderful music, to be replaced with joyless lectures about white supremacy and privilege; and a woke parade of ‘lost’ Black and Female composers who’ve been the ‘victims’ over the centuries of racist or misogynist oppression. Pale, Male and Stale is out. The canon is being detoxified; historical patriarchy is replaced with vicious matriarchy, and various other ‘modern’ perspectives.
No nook or cranny of our lives escapes this horrendous, remorseless onslaught.
I watched less than five minutes of it before I had to switch it off. It was so bad it made me cringe. Rings of Power was written and produced by people who find Tolkien problematic.
I got 20 mins into rings of power and fell asleep. Worse than the wheel of time, which was massively departed from the actual books.
It’s a very strange phenomena. Spend vast sums of money on licenses for beloved intellectual properties with huge built in audiences only for every creative decision seemingly made to attract people who are not fans of the IP in the first place while simultaneously pushing the original fans away.
If it’s not deliberate, it’s the most incompetent business decision an entertainment company could make.
Apparently, such companies rely on ‘hate-watching’ – fans of an IP who watch a series based on it only to complain about it. Much of the news media is also guilty of this:
https://strixus.com/entry/outrage-culture-how-the-media-gets-your-attention-1875
It is a very cynical ploy used to trigger people and circumnavigate their rational thinking mechanisms.
Completely agree. Contrast the LOTR dumpster fire with the success of HBO’s Game of Thrones and you see what success can come if you stick to the storyline more or less. That is until you run out of books……
Apparently, such companies rely on ‘hate-watching’ – fans of an IP who watch a series based on it only to complain about it. Much of the news media is also guilty of this:
https://strixus.com/entry/outrage-culture-how-the-media-gets-your-attention-1875
It is a very cynical ploy used to trigger people and circumnavigate their rational thinking mechanisms.
Completely agree. Contrast the LOTR dumpster fire with the success of HBO’s Game of Thrones and you see what success can come if you stick to the storyline more or less. That is until you run out of books……
I cancelled Netflix 2 years ago when every program became a tiresome and predictable woke lecture.
In a futile gesture I recently even cancelled Amazon Prime out of disgust for their desecration of Tolkien and explicit hatred of his fans. We’ll see if I can live without it!
I’m beyond fed up with giant corporations that actively despise half their own customers. Many are effective monopolies like Amazon. All seem captured by their employees’ ideologies, and a few activists. There is obviously an enormous market for quality non-woke entertainment, yet every one of these companies would rather lose money than risk offending the woke commissars.
My take on this is that ‘Wokeness’ is the ideology of spoilt rich kids and now that they’re graduating college they’re able to use their parents’ networks to leverage themselves into high-end corporate jobs. As such they’re in a position to exert undue influence on their employers who are perhaps too timid to stand up to them for fear of being called out as a phobe of some kind.
Like you I’m surprised that no-one has cottoned to this and is prepared to strike out on their own to make dedicated non-woke entertainment, but I think celebrities and entertainers are in the same boat too: too scared to stand up to the orthodoxy in case they lose Twitter likes.
My take on this is that ‘Wokeness’ is the ideology of spoilt rich kids and now that they’re graduating college they’re able to use their parents’ networks to leverage themselves into high-end corporate jobs. As such they’re in a position to exert undue influence on their employers who are perhaps too timid to stand up to them for fear of being called out as a phobe of some kind.
Like you I’m surprised that no-one has cottoned to this and is prepared to strike out on their own to make dedicated non-woke entertainment, but I think celebrities and entertainers are in the same boat too: too scared to stand up to the orthodoxy in case they lose Twitter likes.
I got 20 mins into rings of power and fell asleep. Worse than the wheel of time, which was massively departed from the actual books.
It’s a very strange phenomena. Spend vast sums of money on licenses for beloved intellectual properties with huge built in audiences only for every creative decision seemingly made to attract people who are not fans of the IP in the first place while simultaneously pushing the original fans away.
If it’s not deliberate, it’s the most incompetent business decision an entertainment company could make.
I cancelled Netflix 2 years ago when every program became a tiresome and predictable woke lecture.
In a futile gesture I recently even cancelled Amazon Prime out of disgust for their desecration of Tolkien and explicit hatred of his fans. We’ll see if I can live without it!
I’m beyond fed up with giant corporations that actively despise half their own customers. Many are effective monopolies like Amazon. All seem captured by their employees’ ideologies, and a few activists. There is obviously an enormous market for quality non-woke entertainment, yet every one of these companies would rather lose money than risk offending the woke commissars.
It’s interesting to see the reaction to Velma. It appears this practice may finally have jumped the shark since even the rather small demographic it was aimed at also hate it.
Apparently, a cynical, post-modern deconstruction of Scooby Doo aimed at a “modern audience” was wanted by pretty much no one if its 3% positive reviews are anything to go by.
Velma was Mrs Grayle. Moose Malloy was desperate to find her in Farewell My Lovely. Velma also appeared in High Sierra. Bogart kept bumping into characters called Velma. Both films worth watching.
Velma was Mrs Grayle. Moose Malloy was desperate to find her in Farewell My Lovely. Velma also appeared in High Sierra. Bogart kept bumping into characters called Velma. Both films worth watching.
The Rings of Power has many failings but it is worthy of taking it seriously beyond attaching criticism to it through the lens of “it’s from Amazon” and the casting choices, which have become attached to the woke narrative. Like the RSC some of the players in the show that do not come from the original ethnicity of the characters are very good.
Mr. Tolkien never wrote more than a few pages about the events of the second age but there are some interesting themes worthy of exploration rather than for instance using the rights to do an origin, Aragorn story, which was considered.
1) This is a time when the men of the three houses have been granted the Land of the Star. Initially, their lives are enriched by the powers but they come to resent them and their own mortality. It’s worth telling that story as a study of, almost Paradise.
2) It is also an opportunity to consider the Dwarf’s lust for treasure in a much more adult way than in the Hobbit Book.
3) We also find the Elves who remain in middle earth trying to find their way perhaps in the professor’s mind, a reflection of the ruling class after the great war. They are full of regret for their actions in the first age and yet attempt to harness the memories of the blessed realm through the creation of powerful rings which echo the capturing of the essence of the two trees in the Silmarils.
In to this a possibly repentant Sauron, who is still incarnate, strides capable of dissembling.
The producers of the show have shown both their enormous love of Tolkien in many ways visuals, text, and behavior but also their lack of experience in running such a massive undertaking with modern dialogue and a lack of momentum in the middle sections, relying too heavily on mystery such as the Harfoot and Stranger.
Their biggest dilemma and one the gatekeeper Simon Tolkien dealt directly with them on in a positive manner, is the story begins at the end of the first age but they are unable to use the material from the Silmarillion as a perfect foundation.
As a result, the show begins rather like a builder who has had to put a false floor into an existing property over a very fine and beautiful existing one. So if you found the first few moments jarring, as I did, that is why. It is not out of a lack of respect it is out of the necessity of copyright restrictions.
It is far from perfect but as they gain experience I expect the show to improve there is certainly a genuine desire to do so.
The moment with the paper ship of Galadriel’s that the other children destroyed was a beautiful echo of the burning of the ships of the Teleri at Losgar and when Galadriel incredulously is left to swim back to Middle Earth she is given encouragement by the site of the Valacirca so yes it is a mixture but I am content as a fan of 57 years to make the journey.
I am shocked that you could call yourself a fan of Tolkein’s legendarium and yet tolerate that bilge called Rings of Power. They destroyed Galadriel.
I agree with your three themes about what makes the second age an interesting one, but I disagree that the show attempts to actually demonstrate them:
The Numenorean’s jealous of elven immortality is interesting, so why did the show decide to volte face and rather make it an allegory of immigration policy?
Additionally, since the decision to compress the timeline, it also removes one of the more interesting cinematic juxtapositions of ageing and dying men vs the immortal elves.
The timeline compression was a huge mistake and one that Amazon and The Tolkien estate made together. This has created a complete rewrite of Galadriel’s and Elrond’s character. Galadriel should be married and probably have already given birth to Celebrian.
This is to say nothing of her becoming a genocidal maniac with unsurpassed hatred of Sauron (a hatred she should only bear for Faenor).
I just cannot agree about decisions coming from respect. They borne from hubris. Mordor wasn’t a verdant land, it was already a desolation, but they chose to make it a pleasant land so that Mordor was constructed on their watch. They’ve admitted that.
I am shocked that you could call yourself a fan of Tolkein’s legendarium and yet tolerate that bilge called Rings of Power. They destroyed Galadriel.
I agree with your three themes about what makes the second age an interesting one, but I disagree that the show attempts to actually demonstrate them:
The Numenorean’s jealous of elven immortality is interesting, so why did the show decide to volte face and rather make it an allegory of immigration policy?
Additionally, since the decision to compress the timeline, it also removes one of the more interesting cinematic juxtapositions of ageing and dying men vs the immortal elves.
The timeline compression was a huge mistake and one that Amazon and The Tolkien estate made together. This has created a complete rewrite of Galadriel’s and Elrond’s character. Galadriel should be married and probably have already given birth to Celebrian.
This is to say nothing of her becoming a genocidal maniac with unsurpassed hatred of Sauron (a hatred she should only bear for Faenor).
I just cannot agree about decisions coming from respect. They borne from hubris. Mordor wasn’t a verdant land, it was already a desolation, but they chose to make it a pleasant land so that Mordor was constructed on their watch. They’ve admitted that.
My wife and I dro
pped our Netflix subscription of a decade more than a year ago. House-sitting our daughter’s house for several weeks we had the opportunity to sample what we’ve been missing. Not much, I’m afraid. We usually apply the ten minute test: when tempted to bail out earlier we’d hold on that long because some movies take that long to see signs it might be interesting. It was brutal. Some evenings we’d have to go through a dozen to find something remotely watchable. Other evenings we’d end up reading. It seems like they’re only making about half a dozen different movies now. The actors all look the same, act the same, think the same, have sex the same ways (who likes to stand up against a wall and have sex? Or on a kitchen counter? Really? When there’s furniture and beds ten feet away?) Most of the white nonstar males are evil or stupid.The women all went to Kung Fu ninja school. The only positive males are ethnic, usually old black men with white beards. And what’s with all the food samurai movies? Is that what heros have become now? Food prep artists? Food warriors? Don’t look, Achilles. We amuse ourselves by predicting plot outcomes but it’s way too easy. No challenge. If Netflix wanted an auto rating system, a good one would be the inverse of the percentage of it the members sat through before turning it off.
I’m exaggerating, of course. But not by much. The worthwhile movies we do find are almost always subtitled foreign movies (can’t stand dubbing). Or the rare Indie.
The BB riffed on the this lack of originality here: https://babylonbee.com/news/review-of-latest-marvel-movie-a-film-where-things-happen-heroes-fight-bad-guys-and-sometimes-there-are-jokes
I watched less than five minutes of it before I had to switch it off. It was so bad it made me cringe. Rings of Power was written and produced by people who find Tolkien problematic.
It’s interesting to see the reaction to Velma. It appears this practice may finally have jumped the shark since even the rather small demographic it was aimed at also hate it.
Apparently, a cynical, post-modern deconstruction of Scooby Doo aimed at a “modern audience” was wanted by pretty much no one if its 3% positive reviews are anything to go by.
The Rings of Power has many failings but it is worthy of taking it seriously beyond attaching criticism to it through the lens of “it’s from Amazon” and the casting choices, which have become attached to the woke narrative. Like the RSC some of the players in the show that do not come from the original ethnicity of the characters are very good.
Mr. Tolkien never wrote more than a few pages about the events of the second age but there are some interesting themes worthy of exploration rather than for instance using the rights to do an origin, Aragorn story, which was considered.
1) This is a time when the men of the three houses have been granted the Land of the Star. Initially, their lives are enriched by the powers but they come to resent them and their own mortality. It’s worth telling that story as a study of, almost Paradise.
2) It is also an opportunity to consider the Dwarf’s lust for treasure in a much more adult way than in the Hobbit Book.
3) We also find the Elves who remain in middle earth trying to find their way perhaps in the professor’s mind, a reflection of the ruling class after the great war. They are full of regret for their actions in the first age and yet attempt to harness the memories of the blessed realm through the creation of powerful rings which echo the capturing of the essence of the two trees in the Silmarils.
In to this a possibly repentant Sauron, who is still incarnate, strides capable of dissembling.
The producers of the show have shown both their enormous love of Tolkien in many ways visuals, text, and behavior but also their lack of experience in running such a massive undertaking with modern dialogue and a lack of momentum in the middle sections, relying too heavily on mystery such as the Harfoot and Stranger.
Their biggest dilemma and one the gatekeeper Simon Tolkien dealt directly with them on in a positive manner, is the story begins at the end of the first age but they are unable to use the material from the Silmarillion as a perfect foundation.
As a result, the show begins rather like a builder who has had to put a false floor into an existing property over a very fine and beautiful existing one. So if you found the first few moments jarring, as I did, that is why. It is not out of a lack of respect it is out of the necessity of copyright restrictions.
It is far from perfect but as they gain experience I expect the show to improve there is certainly a genuine desire to do so.
The moment with the paper ship of Galadriel’s that the other children destroyed was a beautiful echo of the burning of the ships of the Teleri at Losgar and when Galadriel incredulously is left to swim back to Middle Earth she is given encouragement by the site of the Valacirca so yes it is a mixture but I am content as a fan of 57 years to make the journey.
If you want an excellent example of this in practice just look at the state of modern corporate entertainment. You can rip off and reboot all the intellectual properties you want, dump as much money into it as possible, update it for “broad appeal”, have mass media shill it for hours on end, and throw in a heavy handed political message to ensure you cannot be criticized by the “right” people. What you cannot do is force people to spend money on poorly written garbage they have no interest in. Amazon’s half a billon dollar Lord of the Rings dumpster fire is a hilarious example of this in action.
Isn’t the situation more serious than this? Re-boots and risk aversion in film and TV is not that scary. What is terrifying is the fact that the UK today is no different from an East European state in the communist era. Look at the evidence – our publishers, State media BBC and theatre all prioritise and promote our State credo – race, LGBT and gender. Yes prioritised. The result is a nightmare of low quality identical dross, all serving the cause of minority victimhood greviance and entitlement. Books on Empire by top historian? Banned. Mention of the word Muslim in connection with terror attacks? Banned. The BBC OFCOM and MSM conspired to help lock us up in our homes for 2 years via propagandist hysteria – and by consciously banning and suppressing scientific criticism of lockdown. Big Brother should have lost its charter. But it has not. It and the London cultural elite all bow the knee to and SERVE a militant set of State backed ideologies; CRT, Net Zero, the climate catastrophe, Remainia and other such supposed ‘Higher Laws’. Free speech is not a higher law and it is surplus to requirements. Just as the Communists made their State/Pravda media promote ideas and lies scorned by the silent public, so our debased cultural output is similarly mocked and ignored by the public here – but it will not stop. Free speech does not exist in the UK – but they are not told this. Look at the SNP fanatics for a flavour of what is to come when progressive race hating Labour take power. Our legal system is so corrupted by ‘human rights’ it is no longer a shield to our liberties. They have been stolen. Unherd already is a classic samizdat underground publication familiar to Czech dissidents. Enjoy it while it lasts. It will not survive.
The use of minority rights to reduce majority rights (and ult the rights of all), to empower the State and to bypass democracy
Just as the Communists made their State/Pravda media promote ideas and lies scorned by the silent public, so our debased cultural output is similarly mocked and ignored by the public here.
Not yet. The number mocking and ignoring is still a minority in the US on most issues, but a growing minority. A few shibboleths of the left are starting to crumble.
Why do you think Unherd will not survive?
The Progressive Left re discovered a taste and prediliction for Stalinist authoritarianism in the 2 year lockdown tyranny. It is a heroin. Very addictive. Free speech – wobbling and undefended now – will not exist if Starmer and his fellow deranged Knee Bender Identitarian Kommissars sieze power. For Labour, loyalty to their extreme anti discriminatory credo is a ‘Higher Law’, superceding old world luxuries like freedom of expression and the duties of Fourth Estate. It is the only ideology it now has. It is a toxin. So any comments which in any way question or embarrass anything relating to the ‘Nine’ legally Privileged Victim Groups will become a criminal offence. Look at the SNP record. A warning. Study the BBC. A warning. Dig out Labour’s race plans. A warning. Then enjoy Unherd while you can.
The Progressive Left re discovered a taste and prediliction for Stalinist authoritarianism in the 2 year lockdown tyranny. It is a heroin. Very addictive. Free speech – wobbling and undefended now – will not exist if Starmer and his fellow deranged Knee Bender Identitarian Kommissars sieze power. For Labour, loyalty to their extreme anti discriminatory credo is a ‘Higher Law’, superceding old world luxuries like freedom of expression and the duties of Fourth Estate. It is the only ideology it now has. It is a toxin. So any comments which in any way question or embarrass anything relating to the ‘Nine’ legally Privileged Victim Groups will become a criminal offence. Look at the SNP record. A warning. Study the BBC. A warning. Dig out Labour’s race plans. A warning. Then enjoy Unherd while you can.
Yes, dear. Very good.
This is all highly amusing gibberish and the fact that is has 56 upvotes is both hilarious and slightly terrifying – are you people really this far gone?
I could pick apart every sentence for the utter nonsense it is but I don’t really have the time or inclination so let’s just focus on this:
“Books on Empire by top historian? Banned”
Please explain exactly what books have been banned and by whom.
Here’s a tip – you may wish to look up the definition of “banned” before you answer. Might save you looking even more foolish than you already do…
Here is a tip back Mr Snide. Rather than just wasting space here with unwitty petty insults why not actually argue the case and respond to any of points I am making about free speech?. I do not care for any criticism. I should have used the word ‘cancel’ rather than ‘ban’ in relation to the Biggar Empire publication. If you are happy with that story, the persecutions of ‘terf’ academics or lockdown sceptics and the myriad other abuses of free speech anyone sentient can see then you surely do not belong on Unherd.
I literally responded to one of your “points” and you immediately admitted you were wrong!
No point arguing with you, as you say, you “do not care for any criticism”. Is that not the very definition of a closed mind?
Walter, you are on the money, ignore the snide criticism. You post was passionate and the main points completely accurate. However, I think Unherd will survive and prosper as is delicately trying, and broadly succeeding, in riding the slowly building resistance to to the woke wave. It’s messy out there, but I think we are already past peak woke and now fighting the long scrappy rearguard action to bring it completely down. It will be a long job but we will get there.
Thanks. I of course hope so too. Very eager to try out the new bar!. Free thinking will of course never be extinguished (as it plainly has been in certain squaky correspondents on this thread). But where will the platforms in the so called ‘public square’ be five years from now? The social media giants have already embraced censorship and utterly corrupted political reportage in America. And what hope can there be when our State broadcaster, fresh from its shameful propagandist/Censor in chief role in lockdown, declares itself a ‘champion’ of diversity and climate change/Net Zero , overtly, cheerily jettisoning its charter obligation to objective truth as it bows to the anti discriminatory cult? Unherd is already rather like those East European Samizdats, a brave outlier. The law does not protect is. Rather it is now (via the supreme human right obligations to the Nine) and the ill intent of identitarian progressive politicians, a weapon to be deployed against us.
“UnHerd….is delicately trying, and broadly succeeding , in riding the slowly building resistance to the woke wave.”
From the UnHerd “mission statement”; It’s easy and safe to be in one or the other of these camps- defensively liberal or angry reactionary, but UnHerd is trying to do something different, and harder.”
It seems, then, that UnHerd has failed, as the comments here are 95% “angry reactionary” group-think, and utterly intolerant of any dissent from this little fortress mentality.
Amen!
Amen!
And which main points were “completely accurate”?
The banning of history books? Which ones? When? Be specific.
The banning of the use of the word Muslim in connection with terrorism? Clearly, and demonstrably, untrue. “Radical Islam” and “Islamist” are very frequently used on TV and in newspapers in connection to terrorist incidents.
Net Zero being imposed by State diktat? Odd, I thought I saw a few hundred petrol cars today, and planes overhead, and my heating is oil, and a new coal mine is being opened soon, and some new North Sea platforms were being installed this week. So as absolute diktats go, it’s not really too impressive, is it?
“Race hating Labour”; I don’t really know what that means- I assume, if it means anything, that Labour “hate” white people. Really? That’s a “completely accurate fact”? Kier Starmer wants to drag all white people (including himself, I guess) behind a pick-up truck and then hang them from a tree? What exactly is this supposed to mean, in the real, objective world, rather than someone’s deranged paranoid fantasies?
The BBC “locking us in our homes”? Yes, that absolutely happened. You’ve got me there. Martha Kearny padlocked my front door shut and welded my windows. Help!
Thanks. I of course hope so too. Very eager to try out the new bar!. Free thinking will of course never be extinguished (as it plainly has been in certain squaky correspondents on this thread). But where will the platforms in the so called ‘public square’ be five years from now? The social media giants have already embraced censorship and utterly corrupted political reportage in America. And what hope can there be when our State broadcaster, fresh from its shameful propagandist/Censor in chief role in lockdown, declares itself a ‘champion’ of diversity and climate change/Net Zero , overtly, cheerily jettisoning its charter obligation to objective truth as it bows to the anti discriminatory cult? Unherd is already rather like those East European Samizdats, a brave outlier. The law does not protect is. Rather it is now (via the supreme human right obligations to the Nine) and the ill intent of identitarian progressive politicians, a weapon to be deployed against us.
“UnHerd….is delicately trying, and broadly succeeding , in riding the slowly building resistance to the woke wave.”
From the UnHerd “mission statement”; It’s easy and safe to be in one or the other of these camps- defensively liberal or angry reactionary, but UnHerd is trying to do something different, and harder.”
It seems, then, that UnHerd has failed, as the comments here are 95% “angry reactionary” group-think, and utterly intolerant of any dissent from this little fortress mentality.
And which main points were “completely accurate”?
The banning of history books? Which ones? When? Be specific.
The banning of the use of the word Muslim in connection with terrorism? Clearly, and demonstrably, untrue. “Radical Islam” and “Islamist” are very frequently used on TV and in newspapers in connection to terrorist incidents.
Net Zero being imposed by State diktat? Odd, I thought I saw a few hundred petrol cars today, and planes overhead, and my heating is oil, and a new coal mine is being opened soon, and some new North Sea platforms were being installed this week. So as absolute diktats go, it’s not really too impressive, is it?
“Race hating Labour”; I don’t really know what that means- I assume, if it means anything, that Labour “hate” white people. Really? That’s a “completely accurate fact”? Kier Starmer wants to drag all white people (including himself, I guess) behind a pick-up truck and then hang them from a tree? What exactly is this supposed to mean, in the real, objective world, rather than someone’s deranged paranoid fantasies?
The BBC “locking us in our homes”? Yes, that absolutely happened. You’ve got me there. Martha Kearny padlocked my front door shut and welded my windows. Help!
“You do not belong on unHerd.”
So you’re canceling him? Ironic. A lot of snowflakes here want this to be a ‘safe-space’.
You know you’re doing something right when the resident trolls decide that you or your comments are worthy of their attentions. However, to say they don’t belong is erroneous, because there is not single comment section anywhere on the internet that does not accumulate an array of resident trolls whose life work is to disagree with everyone and everything.
It’s just one of those inevitabilities of the internet, may as well just learn to ignore them or use them for their entertainment value.
I literally responded to one of your “points” and you immediately admitted you were wrong!
No point arguing with you, as you say, you “do not care for any criticism”. Is that not the very definition of a closed mind?
Walter, you are on the money, ignore the snide criticism. You post was passionate and the main points completely accurate. However, I think Unherd will survive and prosper as is delicately trying, and broadly succeeding, in riding the slowly building resistance to to the woke wave. It’s messy out there, but I think we are already past peak woke and now fighting the long scrappy rearguard action to bring it completely down. It will be a long job but we will get there.
“You do not belong on unHerd.”
So you’re canceling him? Ironic. A lot of snowflakes here want this to be a ‘safe-space’.
You know you’re doing something right when the resident trolls decide that you or your comments are worthy of their attentions. However, to say they don’t belong is erroneous, because there is not single comment section anywhere on the internet that does not accumulate an array of resident trolls whose life work is to disagree with everyone and everything.
It’s just one of those inevitabilities of the internet, may as well just learn to ignore them or use them for their entertainment value.
Here is a tip back Mr Snide. Rather than just wasting space here with unwitty petty insults why not actually argue the case and respond to any of points I am making about free speech?. I do not care for any criticism. I should have used the word ‘cancel’ rather than ‘ban’ in relation to the Biggar Empire publication. If you are happy with that story, the persecutions of ‘terf’ academics or lockdown sceptics and the myriad other abuses of free speech anyone sentient can see then you surely do not belong on Unherd.
Well written and completely true. Here, in no particular order, are some of my countermeasures:-
I have undertaken to read only novels by white men, until the legacy publishing industry ends it racist de facto ban of white male fiction.Whenever I encounter woke people online or in real life, I always take care to be as openly abusive as possible.Whenever I engage the services of a commercial organisation, I always make it absolutely clear to them from the outset that any woke nonsense from them will immediately result in my taking my business elsewhere.I tell woke children to be quiet when the grown-ups are talking.
You’re a bloody hero, d**k. Truly, never has a oppressed victim of a tyrannical regime ever risked so much, so bravely, and under such horrific conditions as you are doing now.
Truly, you’re an inspiration. Every unread novel by a black woman is a magnificent blow for freedom. They can grind your body into the dust, but they can never break your spirit!
Is Isla Bryson a man or a woman?
He’s a man – and almost no-one disagrees with that – especially on this page. Not even Nicola Sturgeon! As ever, there are a tiny cabal of activists who think otherwise – though Fox news and others want you to believe it’s a large, powerful, threatening mob (unlike the Jan 6 lot, who were of course a silly group of pranksters, in no way conencted to anything powerful – except the ones who were deep state/FBI plants) – so that they can better sell you stuff. Some people have a ring in their nose with the engraving, ‘property of woke inc’, others, ‘property of the tabloids’. Most avoid either.
He’s a man – and almost no-one disagrees with that – especially on this page. Not even Nicola Sturgeon! As ever, there are a tiny cabal of activists who think otherwise – though Fox news and others want you to believe it’s a large, powerful, threatening mob (unlike the Jan 6 lot, who were of course a silly group of pranksters, in no way conencted to anything powerful – except the ones who were deep state/FBI plants) – so that they can better sell you stuff. Some people have a ring in their nose with the engraving, ‘property of woke inc’, others, ‘property of the tabloids’. Most avoid either.
Ha! Your high satirical mode. Light on abuse and full of bite.
By the way: Have there been any major books published by straight-white-male authors this year or is the de facto ban at full mast?
None at all. Not one. Never in history have a group of peope been more comprehensively oppressed- NEVER I tell you.
None at all. Not one. Never in history have a group of peope been more comprehensively oppressed- NEVER I tell you.
Is Isla Bryson a man or a woman?
Ha! Your high satirical mode. Light on abuse and full of bite.
By the way: Have there been any major books published by straight-white-male authors this year or is the de facto ban at full mast?
You’re a bloody hero, d**k. Truly, never has a oppressed victim of a tyrannical regime ever risked so much, so bravely, and under such horrific conditions as you are doing now.
Truly, you’re an inspiration. Every unread novel by a black woman is a magnificent blow for freedom. They can grind your body into the dust, but they can never break your spirit!
I have not read such unhinged, evidence free, bollocks since looking at Qanon. If you knew anything about real totalitarianism, such as exists in China or Russia, something like this site, which I often disagree with, would simply not exist. As for the BBC it has numerous faults, but having seen the alternatibe living in the U.S. its existence and continued survival is imperative. And it’s as cheap as chips.
The use of minority rights to reduce majority rights (and ult the rights of all), to empower the State and to bypass democracy
Just as the Communists made their State/Pravda media promote ideas and lies scorned by the silent public, so our debased cultural output is similarly mocked and ignored by the public here.
Not yet. The number mocking and ignoring is still a minority in the US on most issues, but a growing minority. A few shibboleths of the left are starting to crumble.
Why do you think Unherd will not survive?
Yes, dear. Very good.
This is all highly amusing gibberish and the fact that is has 56 upvotes is both hilarious and slightly terrifying – are you people really this far gone?
I could pick apart every sentence for the utter nonsense it is but I don’t really have the time or inclination so let’s just focus on this:
“Books on Empire by top historian? Banned”
Please explain exactly what books have been banned and by whom.
Here’s a tip – you may wish to look up the definition of “banned” before you answer. Might save you looking even more foolish than you already do…
Well written and completely true. Here, in no particular order, are some of my countermeasures:-
I have undertaken to read only novels by white men, until the legacy publishing industry ends it racist de facto ban of white male fiction.Whenever I encounter woke people online or in real life, I always take care to be as openly abusive as possible.Whenever I engage the services of a commercial organisation, I always make it absolutely clear to them from the outset that any woke nonsense from them will immediately result in my taking my business elsewhere.I tell woke children to be quiet when the grown-ups are talking.
I have not read such unhinged, evidence free, bollocks since looking at Qanon. If you knew anything about real totalitarianism, such as exists in China or Russia, something like this site, which I often disagree with, would simply not exist. As for the BBC it has numerous faults, but having seen the alternatibe living in the U.S. its existence and continued survival is imperative. And it’s as cheap as chips.
Isn’t the situation more serious than this? Re-boots and risk aversion in film and TV is not that scary. What is terrifying is the fact that the UK today is no different from an East European state in the communist era. Look at the evidence – our publishers, State media BBC and theatre all prioritise and promote our State credo – race, LGBT and gender. Yes prioritised. The result is a nightmare of low quality identical dross, all serving the cause of minority victimhood greviance and entitlement. Books on Empire by top historian? Banned. Mention of the word Muslim in connection with terror attacks? Banned. The BBC OFCOM and MSM conspired to help lock us up in our homes for 2 years via propagandist hysteria – and by consciously banning and suppressing scientific criticism of lockdown. Big Brother should have lost its charter. But it has not. It and the London cultural elite all bow the knee to and SERVE a militant set of State backed ideologies; CRT, Net Zero, the climate catastrophe, Remainia and other such supposed ‘Higher Laws’. Free speech is not a higher law and it is surplus to requirements. Just as the Communists made their State/Pravda media promote ideas and lies scorned by the silent public, so our debased cultural output is similarly mocked and ignored by the public here – but it will not stop. Free speech does not exist in the UK – but they are not told this. Look at the SNP fanatics for a flavour of what is to come when progressive race hating Labour take power. Our legal system is so corrupted by ‘human rights’ it is no longer a shield to our liberties. They have been stolen. Unherd already is a classic samizdat underground publication familiar to Czech dissidents. Enjoy it while it lasts. It will not survive.
One aspect of cultural activity which Mary’s article doesn’t delve into is painting/sculpture, aka fine art, although i’m not a fan of that term. It’s not an omission as such, since she’s making her case around popular visual media, whilst introducing me (at least) to the term “eldritch”.
I paint, my work is exhibited. The physical process of creation is one of the reasons i took it up, entranced by the potential for non-literal expression when engaged with the long, slow process of development through time and spiritual enrichment. It took years just to climb out of the foothills, and only really started to take off in retirement from what proved to be a fulfilling career elsewhere (i realised i was never going to make a living from it when in my 20s). But i do regard it as my life’s work. My point here is this: will this type of process, involving the production of a physical object, survive? I believe it will, and in fact i’d wager that as the emptiness of regurgitated visual culture hits home, such processes will be seen as having a premium. I’d compare it, without any sense of trivialising it, with the production of real ale and craft ale, following the attempt at homogenisation of beer from about 1960-2000.
Just one thing: for youngsters considering (or impelled towards) a career as an artist, art school isn’t necessarily the best route, and absolutely not the only one. Get out into life. Live, doing something else which involves escaping the art world bubble. For me, it was healthcare, but as long as seeing and absorbing different aspects of life (and death) it’ll enhance your practise in ways you would never otherwise imagine.
This is essentially what’s missing from creative production in the visual arts, and all artistic endeavour. Mary’s article points towards the symptoms; we must tackle the disease.
Depends on the art school. My husband and I met in ours, moved to NYC upon graduation, and have made our living as artists ever since. Our school was blessed with instructors and a dean who were all active professionals in their various fields, so we had the very unique position of directly competing with them when we left school and entered the work force. Being trained by one’s competition was truly an act on their part of great generosity and faith. Later, I taught illustration as an adjunct at a local college while I was still a syndicated cartoonist. I am very proud to say that most of my students went on to become pros, and I have kept in touch with several of them.
That’s great to hear, Alison. I’m afraid art schools in the UK have been taken over by a largely wokeist crowd, and any talent (in the broadest sense) will come through despite their ministrations rather than because of them. The model you describe sounds ideal.
They probably have here, as well, Steve. Back then, almost all of our instructors were men who were no-nonsense successful pros working in very tough, competitive fields, and they were preparing us for it. They knew that the large majority of freshmen would drop out after the first year because those kids thought it was going to be easy. If a student made it past his or her junior year, the teachers would devote themselves to getting that person into professional shape. My husband was awarded Best Senior Portfolio – the school’s highest honor – upon graduation and given a free fifth year studio “class” where he worked one-on-one with the dean. It really was a remarkable place. I, too, wish it was the model for all schools,
They probably have here, as well, Steve. Back then, almost all of our instructors were men who were no-nonsense successful pros working in very tough, competitive fields, and they were preparing us for it. They knew that the large majority of freshmen would drop out after the first year because those kids thought it was going to be easy. If a student made it past his or her junior year, the teachers would devote themselves to getting that person into professional shape. My husband was awarded Best Senior Portfolio – the school’s highest honor – upon graduation and given a free fifth year studio “class” where he worked one-on-one with the dean. It really was a remarkable place. I, too, wish it was the model for all schools,
You must have no more friends in the art world these days. Being an artist on the conservative side (I assume from your posts) of the aisle must be challenging.
We’ve paid the price professionally more than once, WT, but we do have a handful of right-leaning artist friends – mostly professional illustrators. These are self-employed guys (no women) who’ve made a living by sheer dint of talent and hard work. Many have mortgages, wives and kids, one guy is also a power lifter and pilot (!), all of them are big into sports – about as far away from the urban gallery fops that typify the species most people think of. I can’t imagine too many conservatives emerging from art schools today; they don’t even seem capable of producing artists.
Artists have been largely ‘progressive’, or anti-reactionary, since at least the Renaissance, when the modern idea of the ‘artist’ began- the Romantics being a prime example.
Whether you approve of it or not, political conservativism has always been a minority view in the arts. On the other hand, both Francis Bacon and Gilbert and George were/are great fans of Mrs. Thatcher, and I strongly suspect you would hate the “so-called art” of them.
Nonsense Miss Holland, where did you learn that may I ask?
Ooh, Charlie! “Miss”!
Brilliant. How devastatingly upsetting, to be labelled a “female”. The very thought fills me with both disgust and shame. I don’t know if I can continue actually, now I’ve heard that corruscating putdown. Not even married!
In answer to your question, though, I’m all ears to hear your refutation, and a comprehensive list of great reactionary painters.
The Futurists, of course, feigned a love of war and Fascism as cleansing antiseptics, and hated the ‘eternal feminine’, all of which is right up your alley, but then they were ghastly Modern daubers, so I’m not sure if that counts.
Can the great Nazi sculptors like Breker and Thorak be termed ‘conservative’? Surely not, not even reactionary. Perhaps we should just forget them, despite their fabulous, rippling male paragons.
My sincere apologies that should have been Mr NOT Miss, the perils of ‘predicted text’!
However I do dislike your uncalled for familiarity. I would never dream of addressing you as John or even worse Johnnie, and therefore expect you to address me as Stanhope or Mr Stanhope. Otherwise as ‘we’ say, you obviously don’t know “how to behave”. ( Mid-Atlantic again perhaps?)
Now as for: “Artists have been largely ‘progressive’, or anti-reactionary, since at least the Renaissance, when the modern idea of the ‘artist’ began- the Romantics being a prime example.” What a sweeping generalisation, you sound like a second rate version of the late Brian Sewell, with his “shock & awe” outbursts!
I could rattle of a list of list of reactionaries such as Dali, Goya or even the blessed G &G, but frankly I believe ‘Art’ died with collapse of the Pagan Roman Empire, and most of what has followed has been for the most part pretentious drivel. No doubt you will correct me?
Never apologise to the woke scum, Charles.
Don’t call him Charles, he prefers ‘Unwoke Scum, Esq.
Richard, how old do you think Holland is?
I would guess 25-30.
Perhaps we should refer to him* as “Baby Holland” from now on?
(* Assuming off course that he is a male of the species, which I sometimes doubt.)
Oh Master Stanhopeless.
So ‘Charles” is rude, yet “woke scum” is jolly fine and dandy- not to mention this unhealthy obsession with ‘gender realignment’ that you and your fellow UnHerd herd here seem to share.
Really- what did your poor Mummy and Daddy actually pay for? A little velvet suit and a deep ambivalence towards communal showers? I really don’t mean to be rude, Stan, but Christ- if you could manage even just the rudimentary appearance of rational thinking, you might begin to justify the money that your poor parents spent on your education. Come on, Charlie- think back to your lessons on those Greek chaps- not the fun stuff about young boys, but Socrates and that other one, Pluto or whatever he was called….
“Baby” Holland don’t be so impetuous. I didn’t use the term “Woke Scum”, nor SADLY can I take any credit for it.
You must be accurate with your rants, otherwise it only demeans you*.
(Mrs Holland for example. Is she or is she not!)
“Baby” Holland don’t be so impetuous. I didn’t use the term “Woke Scum”, nor SADLY can I take any credit for it.
You must be accurate with your rants, otherwise it only demeans you*.
(Mrs Holland for example. Is she or is she not!)
Oh Master Stanhopeless.
So ‘Charles” is rude, yet “woke scum” is jolly fine and dandy- not to mention this unhealthy obsession with ‘gender realignment’ that you and your fellow UnHerd herd here seem to share.
Really- what did your poor Mummy and Daddy actually pay for? A little velvet suit and a deep ambivalence towards communal showers? I really don’t mean to be rude, Stan, but Christ- if you could manage even just the rudimentary appearance of rational thinking, you might begin to justify the money that your poor parents spent on your education. Come on, Charlie- think back to your lessons on those Greek chaps- not the fun stuff about young boys, but Socrates and that other one, Pluto or whatever he was called….
Don’t call him Charles, he prefers ‘Unwoke Scum, Esq.
Richard, how old do you think Holland is?
I would guess 25-30.
Perhaps we should refer to him* as “Baby Holland” from now on?
(* Assuming off course that he is a male of the species, which I sometimes doubt.)
Ah- the usual ‘identity’ whining about how people are allowed to refer to one, the correct name and pronoun, the tiresome demands that everyone ‘respects your self-definition’.
If it weren’t for the fact that you delight in public-schoolboy name-calling as much as you do, it would almost be touching in its sensitivity. As it is, it’s merely fatuously hypocritical posturing, Charles. You’ll just have to ‘man up’ and deal with the ‘threat’ to personal dignity and personal ‘narrative’.
As for your three names- a narcissistic pseudo-fascist, a pair of gay coprphilic mime artists and Goya, about whose political opinions almost nothing is known, aside from the fact that he was as disgusted by war as you are titillated by it. I assume you mention Brian Sewell, despite his total irrelevance in the context, because he’s the only art critic you’ve heard of.
Well done Charles- or can I can you Charlie?
I am sorry Holland but you have revealed yourself as just another ill mannered, ignorant ‘oik’.
I trust you parents didn’t waste their money by having you sent to a Public School?
I mentioned Sewell because your juvenile outbursts reminded me of him, surely even you could comprehend that?
You mentioned you were unmarried, so perhaps there is hope that some wonderful woman may transform you into a civilised human being. I live in hope if not expectation.
In future I would prefer that you address me as Stanhope or Mr Stanhope or perhaps even Sir. Do you think you can manage that Holland old chap.?
ps. As you imply you know something about art critics, what is your take on the Bernard Berenson- Joseph Duveen affair?
Well that’s not too impressive an argument, is it Chas?
Did you have a relevant point to make re your little list of artsists, or is your habit of feigning an attack of the vapours whenever an ‘offensive label’ upsets you the mainstay of your argument here?
Why it’s “ill-mannered” to refer to someone on the internet (as opposed to a 19th century drawing room) by their Christian name, but fine to spout half-baked insults (“Plastic Paddy”, “woke scum”, etc.), I’m not quite sure. Your definition of “manners” seems remarkably devoid of substance, if you don’t mind me saying so- which I’m sure you do. If your parents paid good money for your education, a refund might well be in order, old chap!
As for being unmarried, no- I never said that. I’m most certainly happily married- just ask Mrs. Holland. Why this might be relevant to you, Lord only knows. And though Brian Sewell was definately not married, being very much of the public school persuasion, he was famously conservative in his criticism (which, of course, you’d know if you’d ever actually read him); he hated pretty much all visual art since the mid-19th century. Just throwing out a name that you’ve heard of in the hope that it sounds good is a standard ‘internet rabble’ habit, and a very poor one if you lack the ability to go beyond the first ‘Google’ reference for ‘art critic’. For example- seeing the phrase ‘Bernard Berenson- Joseph Duveen’ pop up on your screen and hoping that sticking it in your response will sound a bit ‘knowledgeable’- even though this arcane and uninteresting “affair” was merely about money and attribution, and so entirely unrelated to the subject. Must try harder.
So- ‘Charles’ it is, unless you think your little friend here’s “scum” is the epitome of courtly charm? “Baby Holland” is certainly remarkably lame, as an attempt at an insult. I’m sure you can do better than that.
Lord Stanhope Of Wikepedia, perhaps?
For all CS’s repeated and repeated and crude claims to class superiority, you might think he’d display a bit more of it. Instead we see the tired cliches of the social climber or laurel-rester (upon others’ success – school/family etc): regular latin quotations, tedious references to Eton and the Guards regiments. I am not a great success in the terms of the class elite, but I’ve know true successes in those circles in all my life, and CS does not sound like one to me. Rather,the aformentioned boorishness, and his recent recourse to name-calling such as, ‘Baby Holland’, and ‘Plastic Paddy’ (the tired SOPs of Johnson and Trump (which, funnily enough, only ever impressed’ ‘the oiks’) indicates he has slipped down the greasy pole, if he ever was up it.
“but I’ve know true successes in those circles in all my life”.
What is that supposed to mean Dominic? Surely NOT self praise?
However thank you for coming to BH’s defence, he certainly needs it. Sadly rather like your good self, his conceit dwarfs his intellect.
It means I was lucky to be born into and move around a big world of genuine movers and shakers, rather than history’s great hangers-on. Just some luck – I am not one of these greats, but I do have a good sense of what they sound like, do, and how they act.
Really! How interesting, it sounds as if you were a Valet or Footman, which, as I am sure you will agree, is rather unusual these days?
I think that if you do your research properly you will find it is N S-T ( formerly Coldstream Guards) who often refers to the Guards.
So to Eton; As both Cameron & Johnson are Old Etonians as off course is the sainted Lord Jonathan Sumption, KS, I think it not unreasonable that the School should mentioned from time to time. If you are uncertain about this try asking those “movers and shakers” you speak of .
Incidentally when you rail against Eton, Oxford and the Guards it only makes you sound ‘chippy’. The fact that you did not have the inestimable privilege of joining this elite is NOT your fault, so get over it.
Finally, given your forename, you are NOT I trust yet another ‘Plastic Paddy’, albeit in disguise?
Your reply, should you wish to make one, will no doubt determine this issue.
A footman, too rich! Reminds me of a schoolmate, who would try to control the room by declaring, ‘but I’m the Earl of O___’ – he seemed to think that would make us fall into line, poor sod, but he was just 10 or so at the time.
I’m afraid I didn’t explain myself properly – I do not rail against Eton or Oxford, The Guards, or the aristocracy etc- I have met very fine people (better than me for sure) in each of these categories. In fact I can honestly say that I never met a Etonian I didn’t like, until recently. No, I rail against those who are constantly, gauchly, reminding people of their connections at every opportunity – and who are actually not good soldiers, businessmen, thinkers (or people) …makes me wonder if there might be a relationship between the two. I like those those whose wear it (their smarts, wealth, status) lightly and get admirable things done way above and beyond general expectation. For a topical example, I’d guess that Sumption rarely mentions his alma maters, and probably rather resents the diversion to the serious work he does….. and Cameron had the decency to crawl off into a depression after he failed in something he believed in (as opposed to the NPD Johnson).
Anyhow, back to what wound me up in the first place – your and Craven’s attempts at bullying JH – my view is that if a gentleman calls a gentleman an oik….well, then one of them surely is.
Thanks for that!
We are not “bullying” Holland, just giving him a bit of his own medicine.
He is normally the first to rail about “snowflakes” etc.
As I said before his conceit dwarfs his intellect, and coupled with his rudeness, he thus presents a perfect target. QED?
Incidentally one of our greatest soldiers and later Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington was the most revolting SNOB imaginable, and also the archetypal ‘Plastic Paddy’.
I’ll bet you like a good thrashing in private! We disagree, but let’s not fight anymore (maybe tomorrow)….,’and so to bed’.
“Chance would be a fine thing!”
Until next time!
“Chance would be a fine thing!”
Until next time!
I’ll bet you like a good thrashing in private! We disagree, but let’s not fight anymore (maybe tomorrow)….,’and so to bed’.
Amusing though your exchange with our superannuated public-schoolboy is, I wouldn’t describe his flatulent performences “bullying”.
Charlie here is doing us the service of exemplifying a ‘type’ that’s even now wearisomely prevalent in English life; the public-school educated mediocrity, the strutting blowhard who vainly hopes that mere snobbery is a substitute for thought, intellect, knowledge, or the slightest ability to muster a meaningful argument about anything whatsoever.
It’s fitfully amusing to watch him perform, until one actually wants engage with a brain rather than an arse.
Thanks for that!
We are not “bullying” Holland, just giving him a bit of his own medicine.
He is normally the first to rail about “snowflakes” etc.
As I said before his conceit dwarfs his intellect, and coupled with his rudeness, he thus presents a perfect target. QED?
Incidentally one of our greatest soldiers and later Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington was the most revolting SNOB imaginable, and also the archetypal ‘Plastic Paddy’.
Amusing though your exchange with our superannuated public-schoolboy is, I wouldn’t describe his flatulent performences “bullying”.
Charlie here is doing us the service of exemplifying a ‘type’ that’s even now wearisomely prevalent in English life; the public-school educated mediocrity, the strutting blowhard who vainly hopes that mere snobbery is a substitute for thought, intellect, knowledge, or the slightest ability to muster a meaningful argument about anything whatsoever.
It’s fitfully amusing to watch him perform, until one actually wants engage with a brain rather than an arse.
A footman, too rich! Reminds me of a schoolmate, who would try to control the room by declaring, ‘but I’m the Earl of O___’ – he seemed to think that would make us fall into line, poor sod, but he was just 10 or so at the time.
I’m afraid I didn’t explain myself properly – I do not rail against Eton or Oxford, The Guards, or the aristocracy etc- I have met very fine people (better than me for sure) in each of these categories. In fact I can honestly say that I never met a Etonian I didn’t like, until recently. No, I rail against those who are constantly, gauchly, reminding people of their connections at every opportunity – and who are actually not good soldiers, businessmen, thinkers (or people) …makes me wonder if there might be a relationship between the two. I like those those whose wear it (their smarts, wealth, status) lightly and get admirable things done way above and beyond general expectation. For a topical example, I’d guess that Sumption rarely mentions his alma maters, and probably rather resents the diversion to the serious work he does….. and Cameron had the decency to crawl off into a depression after he failed in something he believed in (as opposed to the NPD Johnson).
Anyhow, back to what wound me up in the first place – your and Craven’s attempts at bullying JH – my view is that if a gentleman calls a gentleman an oik….well, then one of them surely is.
Really! How interesting, it sounds as if you were a Valet or Footman, which, as I am sure you will agree, is rather unusual these days?
I think that if you do your research properly you will find it is N S-T ( formerly Coldstream Guards) who often refers to the Guards.
So to Eton; As both Cameron & Johnson are Old Etonians as off course is the sainted Lord Jonathan Sumption, KS, I think it not unreasonable that the School should mentioned from time to time. If you are uncertain about this try asking those “movers and shakers” you speak of .
Incidentally when you rail against Eton, Oxford and the Guards it only makes you sound ‘chippy’. The fact that you did not have the inestimable privilege of joining this elite is NOT your fault, so get over it.
Finally, given your forename, you are NOT I trust yet another ‘Plastic Paddy’, albeit in disguise?
Your reply, should you wish to make one, will no doubt determine this issue.
It means I was lucky to be born into and move around a big world of genuine movers and shakers, rather than history’s great hangers-on. Just some luck – I am not one of these greats, but I do have a good sense of what they sound like, do, and how they act.
“but I’ve know true successes in those circles in all my life”.
What is that supposed to mean Dominic? Surely NOT self praise?
However thank you for coming to BH’s defence, he certainly needs it. Sadly rather like your good self, his conceit dwarfs his intellect.
For all CS’s repeated and repeated and crude claims to class superiority, you might think he’d display a bit more of it. Instead we see the tired cliches of the social climber or laurel-rester (upon others’ success – school/family etc): regular latin quotations, tedious references to Eton and the Guards regiments. I am not a great success in the terms of the class elite, but I’ve know true successes in those circles in all my life, and CS does not sound like one to me. Rather,the aformentioned boorishness, and his recent recourse to name-calling such as, ‘Baby Holland’, and ‘Plastic Paddy’ (the tired SOPs of Johnson and Trump (which, funnily enough, only ever impressed’ ‘the oiks’) indicates he has slipped down the greasy pole, if he ever was up it.
Good morning ‘Baby’ Holland. Gosh you do rise so easily to the bait!
You presumably never saw the play ‘The Old Masters’ about those two wretched fraudsters Berenson & Duveen? Too young I presume.Ditto Sewell.
I am glad that there is a Mrs Holland because you did state categorically earlier in this conversation that you were “Not even married!”*.
Also that rather clumsy phrase: “Perhaps we should just forget them, despite their fabulous, rippling male paragons”,** made me think that maybe you were a closet “botty bandit”, however now I am reassured. Please pass my commiserations to Mrs Holland, that woman is a Saint!
(*Three days ago.)
(**Re: Breker & “Thorax”.)
Ah, Charlie- is this really your best effort?
Your responses consist solely of tired insults about my putative lack of intellect/class/nationality, desperately trying to mask your total inability to accually engage with, or meaningfully respond to, any substantive points whatsoever.
You throw out a name that you hope sounds impressive (“Sewell! “Duveen”!), and then, when invariably shown to be clueless about the actual details of your reference, rather than attempt any serious defense of your Google-based name-dropping, you run around wittering about my age, “botty bandits” or some other witless irrelevence.
Your posts are devoid of intellectual content- a series of farting noises made on a plastic trumpet.
Revised due to censorship.
How crude BH I expected better, hope over expectation I suppose.
Try telling the truth, otherwise you appear to be a congenital liar.*
To remind you, as you are obviously in denial:-
1:Married NOT married.?
2:W*ke Sc*m (sadly) NOT my remark.
Revised due to censorship.
How crude BH I expected better, hope over expectation I suppose.
Try telling the truth, otherwise you appear to be a congenital liar.*
To remind you, as you are obviously in denial:-
1:Married NOT married.?
2:W*ke Sc*m (sadly) NOT my remark.
Ah, Charlie- is this really your best effort?
Your responses consist solely of tired insults about my putative lack of intellect/class/nationality, desperately trying to mask your total inability to accually engage with, or meaningfully respond to, any substantive points whatsoever.
You throw out a name that you hope sounds impressive (“Sewell! “Duveen”!), and then, when invariably shown to be clueless about the actual details of your reference, rather than attempt any serious defense of your Google-based name-dropping, you run around wittering about my age, “botty bandits” or some other witless irrelevence.
Your posts are devoid of intellectual content- a series of farting noises made on a plastic trumpet.
‘Baby’ Holland is an obvious compliment to youth and vitality as demonstrated by how quickly you have edited your previous comment!
Incidentally Sewell was a stickler for ‘qualifications’, he was forever banging on about “what are your qualifications” etc. So may I ask what are yours?
Off course in many ways Sewell was a bit of a reprobate, but I enjoyed his critique.
Also did you by any chance read his wonderful obituary to his dog, a ‘rescue’ Whippet I think, written not long before died?
I thought it rivalled Byron’s obit for Boatswain.
Chas, dear, you really haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. Snippings from Wikepedia (‘I know he had a dog!’, ‘If I irrelevantly mention Byron does that get me extra points?!’, ect.) really aren’t worth engaging with.
Stop now. It’s becoming tedious.
I agree this is tedious BH, and why can’t you be concise a put all your bile into ONE post?
Your obsession with the Wikibeast only reveals you as an angry hypocrite, but you can do better.
Incidentally I probably knew Sewell before you were born.
By the way, ‘Thorack’ is the name of the German sculptor; ‘thorax’ is a part of the human anatomy.
I think you meant the former. Never mind.
It was a ‘joke’ and NOT sadly mine, but one made by his contemporaries which you should have KNOWN but didn’t.
You must do better BH, proper research not glib gobbets!
Incidentally, as Sewell would have said, , what are your qualifications? Don’t be bashful, we are all ears!
It was a ‘joke’ and NOT sadly mine, but one made by his contemporaries which you should have KNOWN but didn’t.
You must do better BH, proper research not glib gobbets!
Incidentally, as Sewell would have said, , what are your qualifications? Don’t be bashful, we are all ears!
I agree this is tedious BH, and why can’t you be concise a put all your bile into ONE post?
Your obsession with the Wikibeast only reveals you as an angry hypocrite, but you can do better.
Incidentally I probably knew Sewell before you were born.
By the way, ‘Thorack’ is the name of the German sculptor; ‘thorax’ is a part of the human anatomy.
I think you meant the former. Never mind.
Chas, dear, you really haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. Snippings from Wikepedia (‘I know he had a dog!’, ‘If I irrelevantly mention Byron does that get me extra points?!’, ect.) really aren’t worth engaging with.
Stop now. It’s becoming tedious.
Lord Stanhope Of Wikepedia, perhaps?
Good morning ‘Baby’ Holland. Gosh you do rise so easily to the bait!
You presumably never saw the play ‘The Old Masters’ about those two wretched fraudsters Berenson & Duveen? Too young I presume.Ditto Sewell.
I am glad that there is a Mrs Holland because you did state categorically earlier in this conversation that you were “Not even married!”*.
Also that rather clumsy phrase: “Perhaps we should just forget them, despite their fabulous, rippling male paragons”,** made me think that maybe you were a closet “botty bandit”, however now I am reassured. Please pass my commiserations to Mrs Holland, that woman is a Saint!
(*Three days ago.)
(**Re: Breker & “Thorax”.)
‘Baby’ Holland is an obvious compliment to youth and vitality as demonstrated by how quickly you have edited your previous comment!
Incidentally Sewell was a stickler for ‘qualifications’, he was forever banging on about “what are your qualifications” etc. So may I ask what are yours?
Off course in many ways Sewell was a bit of a reprobate, but I enjoyed his critique.
Also did you by any chance read his wonderful obituary to his dog, a ‘rescue’ Whippet I think, written not long before died?
I thought it rivalled Byron’s obit for Boatswain.
Well that’s not too impressive an argument, is it Chas?
Did you have a relevant point to make re your little list of artsists, or is your habit of feigning an attack of the vapours whenever an ‘offensive label’ upsets you the mainstay of your argument here?
Why it’s “ill-mannered” to refer to someone on the internet (as opposed to a 19th century drawing room) by their Christian name, but fine to spout half-baked insults (“Plastic Paddy”, “woke scum”, etc.), I’m not quite sure. Your definition of “manners” seems remarkably devoid of substance, if you don’t mind me saying so- which I’m sure you do. If your parents paid good money for your education, a refund might well be in order, old chap!
As for being unmarried, no- I never said that. I’m most certainly happily married- just ask Mrs. Holland. Why this might be relevant to you, Lord only knows. And though Brian Sewell was definately not married, being very much of the public school persuasion, he was famously conservative in his criticism (which, of course, you’d know if you’d ever actually read him); he hated pretty much all visual art since the mid-19th century. Just throwing out a name that you’ve heard of in the hope that it sounds good is a standard ‘internet rabble’ habit, and a very poor one if you lack the ability to go beyond the first ‘Google’ reference for ‘art critic’. For example- seeing the phrase ‘Bernard Berenson- Joseph Duveen’ pop up on your screen and hoping that sticking it in your response will sound a bit ‘knowledgeable’- even though this arcane and uninteresting “affair” was merely about money and attribution, and so entirely unrelated to the subject. Must try harder.
So- ‘Charles’ it is, unless you think your little friend here’s “scum” is the epitome of courtly charm? “Baby Holland” is certainly remarkably lame, as an attempt at an insult. I’m sure you can do better than that.
I am sorry Holland but you have revealed yourself as just another ill mannered, ignorant ‘oik’.
I trust you parents didn’t waste their money by having you sent to a Public School?
I mentioned Sewell because your juvenile outbursts reminded me of him, surely even you could comprehend that?
You mentioned you were unmarried, so perhaps there is hope that some wonderful woman may transform you into a civilised human being. I live in hope if not expectation.
In future I would prefer that you address me as Stanhope or Mr Stanhope or perhaps even Sir. Do you think you can manage that Holland old chap.?
ps. As you imply you know something about art critics, what is your take on the Bernard Berenson- Joseph Duveen affair?
Never apologise to the woke scum, Charles.
Ah- the usual ‘identity’ whining about how people are allowed to refer to one, the correct name and pronoun, the tiresome demands that everyone ‘respects your self-definition’.
If it weren’t for the fact that you delight in public-schoolboy name-calling as much as you do, it would almost be touching in its sensitivity. As it is, it’s merely fatuously hypocritical posturing, Charles. You’ll just have to ‘man up’ and deal with the ‘threat’ to personal dignity and personal ‘narrative’.
As for your three names- a narcissistic pseudo-fascist, a pair of gay coprphilic mime artists and Goya, about whose political opinions almost nothing is known, aside from the fact that he was as disgusted by war as you are titillated by it. I assume you mention Brian Sewell, despite his total irrelevance in the context, because he’s the only art critic you’ve heard of.
Well done Charles- or can I can you Charlie?
The Futurists, of course, feigned a love of war and Fascism as cleansing antiseptics, and hated the ‘eternal feminine’, all of which is right up your alley, but then they were ghastly Modern daubers, so I’m not sure if that counts.
Can the great Nazi sculptors like Breker and Thorak be termed ‘conservative’? Surely not, not even reactionary. Perhaps we should just forget them, despite their fabulous, rippling male paragons.
My sincere apologies that should have been Mr NOT Miss, the perils of ‘predicted text’!
However I do dislike your uncalled for familiarity. I would never dream of addressing you as John or even worse Johnnie, and therefore expect you to address me as Stanhope or Mr Stanhope. Otherwise as ‘we’ say, you obviously don’t know “how to behave”. ( Mid-Atlantic again perhaps?)
Now as for: “Artists have been largely ‘progressive’, or anti-reactionary, since at least the Renaissance, when the modern idea of the ‘artist’ began- the Romantics being a prime example.” What a sweeping generalisation, you sound like a second rate version of the late Brian Sewell, with his “shock & awe” outbursts!
I could rattle of a list of list of reactionaries such as Dali, Goya or even the blessed G &G, but frankly I believe ‘Art’ died with collapse of the Pagan Roman Empire, and most of what has followed has been for the most part pretentious drivel. No doubt you will correct me?
Ooh, Charlie! “Miss”!
Brilliant. How devastatingly upsetting, to be labelled a “female”. The very thought fills me with both disgust and shame. I don’t know if I can continue actually, now I’ve heard that corruscating putdown. Not even married!
In answer to your question, though, I’m all ears to hear your refutation, and a comprehensive list of great reactionary painters.
Look. Rubber. You need a literary history lesson. Wordsworth and Coleridge both lost their youthful enthusiasm for revolution and drifted into Toryism as they matured, Rubber, as you will when you grow up. You’ll find an amusing lampoon of Coleridge’s conservatism in Thomas Love Peacock’s Nightmare Abbey. And Wordsworth was horrified by Robespierre’s Reign of Terror which he witnessed at first hand as a young man in Paris, and twenty years later was wont to compare Napoleon to Milton’s depiction of Satan in Paradise Lost.
Good on you for persisting with the “Rubber” thing. I assume it’s a reference to the condom euphemism of our youth, rubber jonny. Excellent- keep it up.
As for the “lesson”- the subject, if you’d bother to read, is visual artists. Never mind, Dickie.
Not to interrupt your mudslinging and name-calling thread, which is not without its intermittent highlights from either side, but I think you mention two good (probably great) English poets with conservative leanings of a different sort, which pushes against, but does not invalidate Mr. Holland’s overall point: very few, not zero,
It’s also sort of fun to remember that many would have considered Milton a radical or a fundamentalist (Puritan) of a very unconservative strain in his own time, what with all that nasty Cromwellian, regicide type business. Favored divorce rights and a free press though.
Indeed- regardless of Mr. “Wokescum”‘s confusion about the actual subject under discussion, we need to be aware of the problem of anachronism- the lazy and ideologically convenient application of contemporary ideas of ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ to people in the past.
My point about visual artists wasn’t that they have been, since the Renaissance, ‘liberal’ in the contemporary sense- just that art from the late 14th century has been consistently defined by change, by each new generation of artists challenging their elders and creating something ‘new’, relatively speaking. That is what ‘modern’ (meaning, essentially, post Medieval) means. Milton was a revolutionary- he was the antithesis of a conservative, but he certainly wasn’t in any way ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’- in the modern sense- either.
I think my comment was ‘disappeared’, but this is an important point- the anachronistic choralling of history into simplistic ‘for or against’ contemporary ideological arguments.
The visual arts since the end of the Medieval period have been defined by change- no ‘major’ artist has not been a challenger of what went before, and as such, has been ‘progressive’ and ‘unconservative’. That doesn’t mean they were ‘Progressive’ in the contemporary political sense- there’s no reason to think that Caravaggio would have voted Democrat, gay murderer though he may have been (joke). Milton was not a conservative- nevermind his religiosity. He was a radical. But he wasn’t a radical who would be happy in the Labour Party.
Indeed- regardless of Mr. “Wokescum”‘s confusion about the actual subject under discussion, we need to be aware of the problem of anachronism- the lazy and ideologically convenient application of contemporary ideas of ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ to people in the past.
My point about visual artists wasn’t that they have been, since the Renaissance, ‘liberal’ in the contemporary sense- just that art from the late 14th century has been consistently defined by change, by each new generation of artists challenging their elders and creating something ‘new’, relatively speaking. That is what ‘modern’ (meaning, essentially, post Medieval) means. Milton was a revolutionary- he was the antithesis of a conservative, but he certainly wasn’t in any way ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’- in the modern sense- either.
I think my comment was ‘disappeared’, but this is an important point- the anachronistic choralling of history into simplistic ‘for or against’ contemporary ideological arguments.
The visual arts since the end of the Medieval period have been defined by change- no ‘major’ artist has not been a challenger of what went before, and as such, has been ‘progressive’ and ‘unconservative’. That doesn’t mean they were ‘Progressive’ in the contemporary political sense- there’s no reason to think that Caravaggio would have voted Democrat, gay murderer though he may have been (joke). Milton was not a conservative- nevermind his religiosity. He was a radical. But he wasn’t a radical who would be happy in the Labour Party.
Some may have “drifted into Toryism as they matured”, but they also sank into total mediocrity, sadly. Such is the tragedy of the loss of human capacity.
Who now reads anything by the elderly Wordsworth?
Good on you for persisting with the “Rubber” thing. I assume it’s a reference to the condom euphemism of our youth, rubber jonny. Excellent- keep it up.
As for the “lesson”- the subject, if you’d bother to read, is visual artists. Never mind, Dickie.
Not to interrupt your mudslinging and name-calling thread, which is not without its intermittent highlights from either side, but I think you mention two good (probably great) English poets with conservative leanings of a different sort, which pushes against, but does not invalidate Mr. Holland’s overall point: very few, not zero,
It’s also sort of fun to remember that many would have considered Milton a radical or a fundamentalist (Puritan) of a very unconservative strain in his own time, what with all that nasty Cromwellian, regicide type business. Favored divorce rights and a free press though.
Some may have “drifted into Toryism as they matured”, but they also sank into total mediocrity, sadly. Such is the tragedy of the loss of human capacity.
Who now reads anything by the elderly Wordsworth?
“Reactionary” describes the Left, as does “hysterical”, “judgmental”, “censorious”, and “intolerant”. When my husband and I were in art school, absolutely nothing was off limits. The idea of quashing a student’s work – whatever the theme – was unthinkable. In visiting the website of our former school – a sad shell of its original iteration – it’s the obviously low quality of the student work that is so striking. The work is crap. If we produced similar, elementary school daubs, we would have been encouraged to explore other professions. That you and others think art is, by nature, “progressive” never had to earn a paycheck from it. Working artists flatter patrons out of necessity. It’s very, very hard to take a stand against doing that. I know from experience, and I’m at peace with our stance.
With all due respect: What art do you like? I am hearing mostly dismissal and self-congratulation.
On your own list of the 10 of 25 best artists of all time in any medium: sculpture, painting, music…Well, first of all, who are they? And how many would you characterize as conventional or conservative according to their works or known views?
It’s a bit much to reduce anyone, let alone a great artist, to one side of some reductive political divide. But are you asserting that judgmentalism, intolerance, censoriousness or even resistance-to-change are more characteristic of the liberal than the conservative mindset? Does art that is innovative or otherwise great tend to emerge from a protective traditionalism?
I’m in sympathy with a number of your expressed views but request you elaborate on your seeming contention that great artists were commonly subservient (rather than just outwardly deferential) to their patrons. I understand Michelangelo, Blake, and many others got in hot water for not following the sellout model seem to defend as a norm you’re “at peace with”.
I don’t think good, lasting art (and I’m more of a literature guy, though not a self-professed expert on that either) is “by nature progressive” but I do think it tends to be challenging, innovative, or unconventional. That doesn’t directly reflect on the political or social views of the artists in question, and a robust list of exceptions could be compiled. But while exceptions may devalue or even explode any idea of a solid rule, they don’t disprove the general tendency.
Of course I agree that the left is no stranger to hyper-reactive and censorious impulses.
What are my Top Tens? Who cares, really? I’m concerned with making a living in my chosen field, which I’ve managed to do for 40 years. If you disagree with my stance, that’s perfectly fine – in fact, that’s what making art of any kind should be about (no “sensitivity” scolds welcome). If that sounds self-congratulatory, I’ll take it.
Fair enough I suppose. I, for one, was interested in what it is you do like, except your own work. Rock on as a champion of your own cartoons and market success, with irrelevant favorites and general findings of crap in others’ work. As a causal art viewer, I can imagine that most of the art school work is truly dreadful.
I understand you to assert that any art–music, sculpture, poetry– should be about deriving an income from that art. So you’d offer your grudging respect to a left-wing artist making experimental garbage if he or she made a living at it?
So if you’re saying that making a living from art is sufficient as a guide to its worth, you must find the above article’s dismissal of contemporary artistic culture as utter, regurgitated rubbish to be completely unfounded and unfair, yes?
I’m not saying that at all, but trying to confirm that Allison Barrows was in fact claiming that, and would therefore–according to her own framework–“have” to respect postmodernism or trashy performance agitprop theatre, for example, as long as it made money.
I don’t think professionalization or monetization is a sufficient or even a good guide to creative worth, though it’s nice work if you can manage it (getting paid to pursue your artistic passion, not “selling out” wholesale).
And while I think we are in the midst of a pretty trashy and crass cultural moment, I do think easy pronouncements like “it’s all crap now” are unfounded and tend to come from a reactionary or rigidly antiquarian mindset. And sometimes from people who really don’t much care for art (painting, music, literature, etc.) at all, but feel the need to make the lazy, yet eternally popular claim that nowadays it’s even worse. “O tempora! O mores!”
We both know this website has a fairly numerous and very outspoken “damn kids these days” / “all gone to hell in a handbasket” contingent. Sometimes I try engage such commenters on a version of what I perceive to be their own terms, but as you also know: that usually doesn’t lead to much of substance, just rhetorical blows exchanged, zingers landed, points scored, yadda yadda.
Exceptions do occur though–and sometimes it’s fun to squabble, or attempt to gain “likes” and hints of movement when you know you’re outnumbered. It’s even possible that our own position or perspective will budge for the better, as unlikely as that is once things get disputatious.
“The golden age was never the present age” –Poor Richard
Sorry, that was a response to Ms. Barrows.
Understood and no problem. I thought it was more like me to (seem to) mistake the commenter’s intent.
Understood and no problem. I thought it was more like me to (seem to) mistake the commenter’s intent.
I’m not saying that at all, but trying to confirm that Allison Barrows was in fact claiming that, and would therefore–according to her own framework–“have” to respect postmodernism or trashy performance agitprop theatre, for example, as long as it made money.
I don’t think professionalization or monetization is a sufficient or even a good guide to creative worth, though it’s nice work if you can manage it (getting paid to pursue your artistic passion, not “selling out” wholesale).
And while I think we are in the midst of a pretty trashy and crass cultural moment, I do think easy pronouncements like “it’s all crap now” are unfounded and tend to come from a reactionary or rigidly antiquarian mindset. And sometimes from people who really don’t much care for art (painting, music, literature, etc.) at all, but feel the need to make the lazy, yet eternally popular claim that nowadays it’s even worse. “O tempora! O mores!”
We both know this website has a fairly numerous and very outspoken “damn kids these days” / “all gone to hell in a handbasket” contingent. Sometimes I try engage such commenters on a version of what I perceive to be their own terms, but as you also know: that usually doesn’t lead to much of substance, just rhetorical blows exchanged, zingers landed, points scored, yadda yadda.
Exceptions do occur though–and sometimes it’s fun to squabble, or attempt to gain “likes” and hints of movement when you know you’re outnumbered. It’s even possible that our own position or perspective will budge for the better, as unlikely as that is once things get disputatious.
“The golden age was never the present age” –Poor Richard
Sorry, that was a response to Ms. Barrows.
So if you’re saying that making a living from art is sufficient as a guide to its worth, you must find the above article’s dismissal of contemporary artistic culture as utter, regurgitated rubbish to be completely unfounded and unfair, yes?
Fair enough I suppose. I, for one, was interested in what it is you do like, except your own work. Rock on as a champion of your own cartoons and market success, with irrelevant favorites and general findings of crap in others’ work. As a causal art viewer, I can imagine that most of the art school work is truly dreadful.
I understand you to assert that any art–music, sculpture, poetry– should be about deriving an income from that art. So you’d offer your grudging respect to a left-wing artist making experimental garbage if he or she made a living at it?
What are my Top Tens? Who cares, really? I’m concerned with making a living in my chosen field, which I’ve managed to do for 40 years. If you disagree with my stance, that’s perfectly fine – in fact, that’s what making art of any kind should be about (no “sensitivity” scolds welcome). If that sounds self-congratulatory, I’ll take it.
“Reactionary, hysterical, judgemental, censorious and intolerant” describe people who exhibit these ‘qualities’, whether ‘left’ or ‘right’. Anyone claiming a monopoly of these things for a ‘side’ is failing to think very hard. I was called “scum” earlier by a member of the UnHerd angry brigade- someone most definitely not on the left, for example.
Then again, you describe ‘progressives’ as “judgemental” and “intolerant”, and you feign outrage that in the Good Old Days “quashing a student’s work….was unthinkable”; you then describe the work you disapprove of as “crap”. Can you work out the hopeless inconsistency there? You hate the “judgementalism” of ‘progressives’, you hate the idea of “quashing student’s work”- but you think all the work now is “crap”.
I hate to say it, but I really don’t think that you’ve quite thought this through….
Just as an exercise, can you find any comments on this site that are both conservative and “judgemental” or “intolerant”?
For example; “woke scum”, posted at least five times now by an Unherd fanboy here, one who particularly hates me. Is that ‘tolerant’ and ‘non-judgemental’? You must think so, strangely.
But how? I’d be very grateful if you could explain….
Just as an exercise, can you find any comments on this site that are both conservative and “judgemental” or “intolerant”?
For example; “woke scum”, posted at least five times now by an Unherd fanboy here, one who particularly hates me. Is that ‘tolerant’ and ‘non-judgemental’? You must think so, strangely.
But how? I’d be very grateful if you could explain….
With all due respect: What art do you like? I am hearing mostly dismissal and self-congratulation.
On your own list of the 10 of 25 best artists of all time in any medium: sculpture, painting, music…Well, first of all, who are they? And how many would you characterize as conventional or conservative according to their works or known views?
It’s a bit much to reduce anyone, let alone a great artist, to one side of some reductive political divide. But are you asserting that judgmentalism, intolerance, censoriousness or even resistance-to-change are more characteristic of the liberal than the conservative mindset? Does art that is innovative or otherwise great tend to emerge from a protective traditionalism?
I’m in sympathy with a number of your expressed views but request you elaborate on your seeming contention that great artists were commonly subservient (rather than just outwardly deferential) to their patrons. I understand Michelangelo, Blake, and many others got in hot water for not following the sellout model seem to defend as a norm you’re “at peace with”.
I don’t think good, lasting art (and I’m more of a literature guy, though not a self-professed expert on that either) is “by nature progressive” but I do think it tends to be challenging, innovative, or unconventional. That doesn’t directly reflect on the political or social views of the artists in question, and a robust list of exceptions could be compiled. But while exceptions may devalue or even explode any idea of a solid rule, they don’t disprove the general tendency.
Of course I agree that the left is no stranger to hyper-reactive and censorious impulses.
“Reactionary, hysterical, judgemental, censorious and intolerant” describe people who exhibit these ‘qualities’, whether ‘left’ or ‘right’. Anyone claiming a monopoly of these things for a ‘side’ is failing to think very hard. I was called “scum” earlier by a member of the UnHerd angry brigade- someone most definitely not on the left, for example.
Then again, you describe ‘progressives’ as “judgemental” and “intolerant”, and you feign outrage that in the Good Old Days “quashing a student’s work….was unthinkable”; you then describe the work you disapprove of as “crap”. Can you work out the hopeless inconsistency there? You hate the “judgementalism” of ‘progressives’, you hate the idea of “quashing student’s work”- but you think all the work now is “crap”.
I hate to say it, but I really don’t think that you’ve quite thought this through….
Not sure about that; there were plenty of royal portrait painters, Rembrandt, Constable, Turner, Gainsborough, Pre Raphaelites, etc. Modernists were largely about painting out of doors and capturing light and movement. Picasso was left wing, Dali was not.
Your comments apply to some post WW1 artists and art schools but rarely landscape painters such as Paul Nash, Roland Hilder, James Fletcher Watson, Gordon Beningfield, though Ian MacInnes was a socialist.
Those artists who enjoy London celebrity are often left wing but those working in the countryside and painting land scapes are often non-political.
You’re mistaking my assertion of the ‘unconservative’ nature of post-Renaissance art with an argument for the artists being ‘left-wing’ in the contemporary, ideological sense.
That wasn’t my point. Rembrandt, Constable, Turner at al were, in the artistic and cultural sense, ‘revolutionary’- whatever their personal political views. Their art was ‘unconservative’.
You’re mistaking my assertion of the ‘unconservative’ nature of post-Renaissance art with an argument for the artists being ‘left-wing’ in the contemporary, ideological sense.
That wasn’t my point. Rembrandt, Constable, Turner at al were, in the artistic and cultural sense, ‘revolutionary’- whatever their personal political views. Their art was ‘unconservative’.
Nonsense Miss Holland, where did you learn that may I ask?
Look. Rubber. You need a literary history lesson. Wordsworth and Coleridge both lost their youthful enthusiasm for revolution and drifted into Toryism as they matured, Rubber, as you will when you grow up. You’ll find an amusing lampoon of Coleridge’s conservatism in Thomas Love Peacock’s Nightmare Abbey. And Wordsworth was horrified by Robespierre’s Reign of Terror which he witnessed at first hand as a young man in Paris, and twenty years later was wont to compare Napoleon to Milton’s depiction of Satan in Paradise Lost.
“Reactionary” describes the Left, as does “hysterical”, “judgmental”, “censorious”, and “intolerant”. When my husband and I were in art school, absolutely nothing was off limits. The idea of quashing a student’s work – whatever the theme – was unthinkable. In visiting the website of our former school – a sad shell of its original iteration – it’s the obviously low quality of the student work that is so striking. The work is crap. If we produced similar, elementary school daubs, we would have been encouraged to explore other professions. That you and others think art is, by nature, “progressive” never had to earn a paycheck from it. Working artists flatter patrons out of necessity. It’s very, very hard to take a stand against doing that. I know from experience, and I’m at peace with our stance.
Not sure about that; there were plenty of royal portrait painters, Rembrandt, Constable, Turner, Gainsborough, Pre Raphaelites, etc. Modernists were largely about painting out of doors and capturing light and movement. Picasso was left wing, Dali was not.
Your comments apply to some post WW1 artists and art schools but rarely landscape painters such as Paul Nash, Roland Hilder, James Fletcher Watson, Gordon Beningfield, though Ian MacInnes was a socialist.
Those artists who enjoy London celebrity are often left wing but those working in the countryside and painting land scapes are often non-political.
We’ve paid the price professionally more than once, WT, but we do have a handful of right-leaning artist friends – mostly professional illustrators. These are self-employed guys (no women) who’ve made a living by sheer dint of talent and hard work. Many have mortgages, wives and kids, one guy is also a power lifter and pilot (!), all of them are big into sports – about as far away from the urban gallery fops that typify the species most people think of. I can’t imagine too many conservatives emerging from art schools today; they don’t even seem capable of producing artists.
Artists have been largely ‘progressive’, or anti-reactionary, since at least the Renaissance, when the modern idea of the ‘artist’ began- the Romantics being a prime example.
Whether you approve of it or not, political conservativism has always been a minority view in the arts. On the other hand, both Francis Bacon and Gilbert and George were/are great fans of Mrs. Thatcher, and I strongly suspect you would hate the “so-called art” of them.
That’s great to hear, Alison. I’m afraid art schools in the UK have been taken over by a largely wokeist crowd, and any talent (in the broadest sense) will come through despite their ministrations rather than because of them. The model you describe sounds ideal.
You must have no more friends in the art world these days. Being an artist on the conservative side (I assume from your posts) of the aisle must be challenging.
Depends on the art school. My husband and I met in ours, moved to NYC upon graduation, and have made our living as artists ever since. Our school was blessed with instructors and a dean who were all active professionals in their various fields, so we had the very unique position of directly competing with them when we left school and entered the work force. Being trained by one’s competition was truly an act on their part of great generosity and faith. Later, I taught illustration as an adjunct at a local college while I was still a syndicated cartoonist. I am very proud to say that most of my students went on to become pros, and I have kept in touch with several of them.
One aspect of cultural activity which Mary’s article doesn’t delve into is painting/sculpture, aka fine art, although i’m not a fan of that term. It’s not an omission as such, since she’s making her case around popular visual media, whilst introducing me (at least) to the term “eldritch”.
I paint, my work is exhibited. The physical process of creation is one of the reasons i took it up, entranced by the potential for non-literal expression when engaged with the long, slow process of development through time and spiritual enrichment. It took years just to climb out of the foothills, and only really started to take off in retirement from what proved to be a fulfilling career elsewhere (i realised i was never going to make a living from it when in my 20s). But i do regard it as my life’s work. My point here is this: will this type of process, involving the production of a physical object, survive? I believe it will, and in fact i’d wager that as the emptiness of regurgitated visual culture hits home, such processes will be seen as having a premium. I’d compare it, without any sense of trivialising it, with the production of real ale and craft ale, following the attempt at homogenisation of beer from about 1960-2000.
Just one thing: for youngsters considering (or impelled towards) a career as an artist, art school isn’t necessarily the best route, and absolutely not the only one. Get out into life. Live, doing something else which involves escaping the art world bubble. For me, it was healthcare, but as long as seeing and absorbing different aspects of life (and death) it’ll enhance your practise in ways you would never otherwise imagine.
This is essentially what’s missing from creative production in the visual arts, and all artistic endeavour. Mary’s article points towards the symptoms; we must tackle the disease.
Sorry. This whole argument is too abstract for me!
The cultural force behind the “spokescandies” is the same as the cultural force that within a few short years has virtually stripped all US commercial television advertisements of leading white men, even though they — we — still constitute the single largest demographic group. Without any rule having been written, EVERY ad must feature a BIPOC in the lead role, often in a kind and gentle way educating, or getting out of some comic trouble, the doofus with the white skin.
This has nothing to do with some overriding conflict between the abstract and the material I think.
I wonder at the howls and personal literature theses that would spark if (I) admitted my white racism, seeing the brown M&M as a Black lady? Maybe also being elicited by some psychological trope, but then also being (Scientism) racism?
It certainly assigns more importance to this advertising campaign than seems warranted.
“They can also be read as evidence, writ small, of something bleaker: the accelerating collapse of cultural creativity into endless, stagnant, and usually woke reboots and remixes.”
Right. Almost anything can be read as emblematic or profoundly significant, but that doesn’t mean it should be. A high-powered microscope doesn’t establish that the import isn’t “writ small” with good reason.
Yes. ‘Woke” ‘Anti-Woke” think they are mortal enemies. Actually, they are like wrestlers fighting in WWF contests, strutting up and down drawing hysterical cheers from their respective fans.
To everyone one else, they are both arses.
Yes. ‘Woke” ‘Anti-Woke” think they are mortal enemies. Actually, they are like wrestlers fighting in WWF contests, strutting up and down drawing hysterical cheers from their respective fans.
To everyone one else, they are both arses.
I wonder at the howls and personal literature theses that would spark if (I) admitted my white racism, seeing the brown M&M as a Black lady? Maybe also being elicited by some psychological trope, but then also being (Scientism) racism?
It certainly assigns more importance to this advertising campaign than seems warranted.
“They can also be read as evidence, writ small, of something bleaker: the accelerating collapse of cultural creativity into endless, stagnant, and usually woke reboots and remixes.”
Right. Almost anything can be read as emblematic or profoundly significant, but that doesn’t mean it should be. A high-powered microscope doesn’t establish that the import isn’t “writ small” with good reason.
Sorry. This whole argument is too abstract for me!
The cultural force behind the “spokescandies” is the same as the cultural force that within a few short years has virtually stripped all US commercial television advertisements of leading white men, even though they — we — still constitute the single largest demographic group. Without any rule having been written, EVERY ad must feature a BIPOC in the lead role, often in a kind and gentle way educating, or getting out of some comic trouble, the doofus with the white skin.
This has nothing to do with some overriding conflict between the abstract and the material I think.
Artificial intelligence is capable only of “learning” from the past, from what already exists. It cannot create anything new. As humans become more machine like and unlearn skills, it’s inevitable that the spark of creative genius will get snuffed out. All we are getting now is a recursive, derivative regurgitation of what he gone before, a culture on auto-pilot, reinforced by the monopolistic economics of mass adopted technology, with nothing guiding it other than its own internally flawed and inherently contradictory belief systems.
It’s going to take some good old-fashioned human courage to put a stop to it and bring some order back into the atrophying cultural chaos that post-modernism and the worship of the self has plunged us all into. Good old Friedrich is no doubt laughing his nihilistic virtual head off in his IRL grave. It may get a lot worse before it gets better.
“…Artificial intelligence is capable only of “learning” from the past, from what already exists. It cannot create anything new…”
This is plain flat not true – illustrated by chess engines (AlphaZero, Leela, Stockfish etc) who display an interesting lesson in this context. The world Chess champion, Magnus Carlsen, has a rating of around 2860, the highest of anyone in history. The top chess engines are 3700+, and no human (or group of humans) can now beat them, typically not even with heavy odds – a consequence of being able to analyze to depths over 40, but also because of the gestalt knowledge of a restricted possibilities surface (the game of chess), embedded within the datasets accreted within the engines over time. Chess engine decisions are now very often inexplicable to humans until subsequent exhaustive analysis reveals the secrets. The top human players though, all learn strategies from the engines, especially the world champion himself – a flip from the early days of AI chess programming, when human created chess principles were programmed into chess algorithms.
Human chess now thrives by making the conscious decision to eschew the help of machine intelligence during play – because it looks for the best human chess players, not the best team of programmers.
That’s an interesting contribution, thanks. When you refer to a “restricted possibilities surface” i can’t help but ask how the human brain conjugates original ideas that don’t involve such a surface.
One could argue that the world itself constitutes such a surface on a vast scale, and therefore that any originality a human brain derives from being alive within it is therefore restricted to that surface; i’m not so sure about that. But certainly, food for thought.
The playout of chess operates over a surface whose rules of operation combined with the rules of operation of the pieces, constitute a ‘universe’ – a very simple zero sum universe, but nevertheless complete. We can invent progressively more complex surfaces with more complex rules resulting in more complex universes – but none of that is necessary – as the Game of Life (Conway) shows, very simple surfaces with very simple rules can result in vastly complex universes, all the way to creating Universal Turing Machines (aka general purpose computers) and self replacing entities (aka life). This has all been demonstrated.
There *is* however a difference between virtually created universes, and the real universe we inhabit. All algorithmically generated universes are, ipso facto, completely deterministic, whereas *our* universe is seemingly subject to (quantum) indeterminacy at very small scales, which eventually percolates up to the macro world in very specific ways. I *want* to believe this difference is fundamental to the way human brains are different from algorithms, but there is nothing anyone has ever shown that this is incontrovertibly the case. On the opposite side, evidence keeps stacking up that there is in fact nothing that algorithms can’t do that the human brain can do.
I agree with you final thesis – sort of.
How quantum uncertainty impacts the macro world is something vastly greater minds than mine have grappled with. I know Einstien wasn’t keen on the idea being very much a determinist.
However, we still do not have a fundamental understanding of how consciousness functions beyond hypoethses relating to it being an emergent property of high levels of parallel complexity.
I briefly studied genetic algorithms at university and it was a definite mind-blow moment. Yes, they require somebody to wind the clock work up, as it were, but what comes out the other end is often far beyond imagination.
I agree with you final thesis – sort of.
How quantum uncertainty impacts the macro world is something vastly greater minds than mine have grappled with. I know Einstien wasn’t keen on the idea being very much a determinist.
However, we still do not have a fundamental understanding of how consciousness functions beyond hypoethses relating to it being an emergent property of high levels of parallel complexity.
I briefly studied genetic algorithms at university and it was a definite mind-blow moment. Yes, they require somebody to wind the clock work up, as it were, but what comes out the other end is often far beyond imagination.
The playout of chess operates over a surface whose rules of operation combined with the rules of operation of the pieces, constitute a ‘universe’ – a very simple zero sum universe, but nevertheless complete. We can invent progressively more complex surfaces with more complex rules resulting in more complex universes – but none of that is necessary – as the Game of Life (Conway) shows, very simple surfaces with very simple rules can result in vastly complex universes, all the way to creating Universal Turing Machines (aka general purpose computers) and self replacing entities (aka life). This has all been demonstrated.
There *is* however a difference between virtually created universes, and the real universe we inhabit. All algorithmically generated universes are, ipso facto, completely deterministic, whereas *our* universe is seemingly subject to (quantum) indeterminacy at very small scales, which eventually percolates up to the macro world in very specific ways. I *want* to believe this difference is fundamental to the way human brains are different from algorithms, but there is nothing anyone has ever shown that this is incontrovertibly the case. On the opposite side, evidence keeps stacking up that there is in fact nothing that algorithms can’t do that the human brain can do.
That’s an interesting contribution, thanks. When you refer to a “restricted possibilities surface” i can’t help but ask how the human brain conjugates original ideas that don’t involve such a surface.
One could argue that the world itself constitutes such a surface on a vast scale, and therefore that any originality a human brain derives from being alive within it is therefore restricted to that surface; i’m not so sure about that. But certainly, food for thought.
Wait until they remove so much of the past, that there will be only a narrow substrate of woke ideas at base?
Think of the medical ideas that will result, due to “racist” or “cis-gender” material being expunged?
“…Artificial intelligence is capable only of “learning” from the past, from what already exists. It cannot create anything new…”
This is plain flat not true – illustrated by chess engines (AlphaZero, Leela, Stockfish etc) who display an interesting lesson in this context. The world Chess champion, Magnus Carlsen, has a rating of around 2860, the highest of anyone in history. The top chess engines are 3700+, and no human (or group of humans) can now beat them, typically not even with heavy odds – a consequence of being able to analyze to depths over 40, but also because of the gestalt knowledge of a restricted possibilities surface (the game of chess), embedded within the datasets accreted within the engines over time. Chess engine decisions are now very often inexplicable to humans until subsequent exhaustive analysis reveals the secrets. The top human players though, all learn strategies from the engines, especially the world champion himself – a flip from the early days of AI chess programming, when human created chess principles were programmed into chess algorithms.
Human chess now thrives by making the conscious decision to eschew the help of machine intelligence during play – because it looks for the best human chess players, not the best team of programmers.
Wait until they remove so much of the past, that there will be only a narrow substrate of woke ideas at base?
Think of the medical ideas that will result, due to “racist” or “cis-gender” material being expunged?
Artificial intelligence is capable only of “learning” from the past, from what already exists. It cannot create anything new. As humans become more machine like and unlearn skills, it’s inevitable that the spark of creative genius will get snuffed out. All we are getting now is a recursive, derivative regurgitation of what he gone before, a culture on auto-pilot, reinforced by the monopolistic economics of mass adopted technology, with nothing guiding it other than its own internally flawed and inherently contradictory belief systems.
It’s going to take some good old-fashioned human courage to put a stop to it and bring some order back into the atrophying cultural chaos that post-modernism and the worship of the self has plunged us all into. Good old Friedrich is no doubt laughing his nihilistic virtual head off in his IRL grave. It may get a lot worse before it gets better.
Everyone now is having their 15 minutes of fame, and making a movie, book, album or social movement around it. The result is that there is glut, like never before, of books, opinions, news sources, albums, tv series and films. Most is average (haha), and there is plenty of very good and very bad – the Bell Curve has not gone away. Rather than watching and then bemoaning the inevitable failures and daftness, we need to get better at bespoke selection. Consuming the crap fills your head with crap.
Everyone now is having their 15 minutes of fame, and making a movie, book, album or social movement around it. The result is that there is glut, like never before, of books, opinions, news sources, albums, tv series and films. Most is average (haha), and there is plenty of very good and very bad – the Bell Curve has not gone away. Rather than watching and then bemoaning the inevitable failures and daftness, we need to get better at bespoke selection. Consuming the crap fills your head with crap.
My job has certainly been dumbed down since computers became involved. Yes, nearly all the procedures can be performed more quickly, but most of the fun’s gone, now that the tactile element has been removed (along with the smell of Cow Gum).
My job has certainly been dumbed down since computers became involved. Yes, nearly all the procedures can be performed more quickly, but most of the fun’s gone, now that the tactile element has been removed (along with the smell of Cow Gum).
Great article. The ‘laptop class’, yes, indeed.
Says someone from their laptop….
Says someone from their laptop….
Great article. The ‘laptop class’, yes, indeed.
Another bull’s-eye from Ms. Harrington! But just two quick points:
There is a relatively small subset of people who knit, sew, forge iron, create fine woodworking with hand tools, build boats, etc. I find them on YouTube. Their videos are deeply satisfying to me, and somehow reassuring. The physically embodied world still exists, even if the culture at large isn’t interested. (As an introduction you could try “Mr. Chickadee”; he posts voiceless videos of his beautiful woodworking projects, all made the old-fashioned way.)
Secondly, the price of housing has destroyed the weird, radical fringe of art created by kids who just don’t care. And the barely habitable and completely illegal lofts and basements that we all lived in have long since been turned into high-end “residences”. I’m thinking of the strange, fizzing, jumping world around CBGBs back in its prime; the bands, the zeroxed posters, the crappy costumes, etc. Because, obviously, with names like “The Dead Kennedys” or “Teenage Jesus and the Jerks”, no one was worrying too much about paying the rent.
Another bull’s-eye from Ms. Harrington! But just two quick points:
There is a relatively small subset of people who knit, sew, forge iron, create fine woodworking with hand tools, build boats, etc. I find them on YouTube. Their videos are deeply satisfying to me, and somehow reassuring. The physically embodied world still exists, even if the culture at large isn’t interested. (As an introduction you could try “Mr. Chickadee”; he posts voiceless videos of his beautiful woodworking projects, all made the old-fashioned way.)
Secondly, the price of housing has destroyed the weird, radical fringe of art created by kids who just don’t care. And the barely habitable and completely illegal lofts and basements that we all lived in have long since been turned into high-end “residences”. I’m thinking of the strange, fizzing, jumping world around CBGBs back in its prime; the bands, the zeroxed posters, the crappy costumes, etc. Because, obviously, with names like “The Dead Kennedys” or “Teenage Jesus and the Jerks”, no one was worrying too much about paying the rent.
What a lot of nonsense. There is a very simple reason for all the remakes and reboots in today’s culture. There has never been a time in human history when so much content has been required. It is hard to fill hundreds of TV channels and the internet with quality, creative content. The requirement to fill so much space is also why there is so much nonsense written about insignificant ephemera and why we argue endlessly about unimportant things like M&Ms.
One of the themes of the recent Oscar nominated film the Banshees of Inisherin is how we get so caught up in our own foolishness that we miss the real injustices and suffering happening right in front of us. That is how the world feels today and it is the direct result of the explosion of content required to keep us diverted from reality in an age of information overload.
Quite right! If it weren’t for Mary being the author, I would have never read the piece. We are on the verge of World War and we are talking about cartoon M&M’s?
Mary. I am almost convinced that her daughter already could think me out of the park, with Mary contributing to her genes, as well as raising her.
Her brain seems vastly superior than almost anyone’s. I wonder just how small-brained most of us seem to her? Is it like most of us seeming to have Down’s Syndrome?
I wish I could get a brain transfusion from her!;- )
Sorry, fed off your comment’s praise for Mary. I can’t write an independent comment here, for some reason, but could only reply.
Truly. Remember all the concern in February, 2022, about Western involvement triggering a nuclear war?
That talk went out the window. Now it is back to 1990s Democratic Nation Building, apparently. Us against the Ruskies.
I think we are already centipedes, and the AI is already good enough that we don’t see it. Why else do the “elites” wanna follow Joe into war? Why are they so invested in Joe’s business dealings in the Ukraine? Or whatever. Or is it simply fan-boying of Zelensky? Look at all the actors and prime ministers dying to be in his arms.
Maybe they all have stock in “green” arms? ‘Cause arms are good if they are for Ukraine, and good is green in an intersectional gestalt /yoga/ ommm way? And with positivity and progressiveness and BL M there is no room for nuclear war?!!
But wait! Climate Change, DIE, TransLGBQ factors! Will the Elites ever reveal their Theory Of Everything?
Mary. I am almost convinced that her daughter already could think me out of the park, with Mary contributing to her genes, as well as raising her.
Her brain seems vastly superior than almost anyone’s. I wonder just how small-brained most of us seem to her? Is it like most of us seeming to have Down’s Syndrome?
I wish I could get a brain transfusion from her!;- )
Sorry, fed off your comment’s praise for Mary. I can’t write an independent comment here, for some reason, but could only reply.
Truly. Remember all the concern in February, 2022, about Western involvement triggering a nuclear war?
That talk went out the window. Now it is back to 1990s Democratic Nation Building, apparently. Us against the Ruskies.
I think we are already centipedes, and the AI is already good enough that we don’t see it. Why else do the “elites” wanna follow Joe into war? Why are they so invested in Joe’s business dealings in the Ukraine? Or whatever. Or is it simply fan-boying of Zelensky? Look at all the actors and prime ministers dying to be in his arms.
Maybe they all have stock in “green” arms? ‘Cause arms are good if they are for Ukraine, and good is green in an intersectional gestalt /yoga/ ommm way? And with positivity and progressiveness and BL M there is no room for nuclear war?!!
But wait! Climate Change, DIE, TransLGBQ factors! Will the Elites ever reveal their Theory Of Everything?
Quite right! If it weren’t for Mary being the author, I would have never read the piece. We are on the verge of World War and we are talking about cartoon M&M’s?
What a lot of nonsense. There is a very simple reason for all the remakes and reboots in today’s culture. There has never been a time in human history when so much content has been required. It is hard to fill hundreds of TV channels and the internet with quality, creative content. The requirement to fill so much space is also why there is so much nonsense written about insignificant ephemera and why we argue endlessly about unimportant things like M&Ms.
One of the themes of the recent Oscar nominated film the Banshees of Inisherin is how we get so caught up in our own foolishness that we miss the real injustices and suffering happening right in front of us. That is how the world feels today and it is the direct result of the explosion of content required to keep us diverted from reality in an age of information overload.
Great observations by Mary as always. Is this not also our own fault too though? If we subscribe to such products then more will be produced. The car reference is very valid, I have a new Golf GTi, but it’s a joyless experience, dampened with needless tech that irritates and baffles. If there’s an alternative made without the nonsense I’ll get that next, if not, I’ll be getting an older car.
Driving is not allowed to be a joyful experience any more.
My heart goes out to you. My Golf GTi (RIP) was an 80s model. The first time I drove a computerised car (Merc.A series Sport) the warning beeps so startled me I reversed into a stone wall. Driving, like so much else nowadays, is creepingly depleting our self-reliance and atrophying our brains. And taking the joy out of it – the joy of being alive.
What about the joys of changing your own oil or fiddling under the hood? Then there is the diminution in road trips, Sunday drives and cruising, due to the cost of fuel. Ah, well, we save the environment—I mean fuel—for all the people who gotta jet here and there. They’ll send us an Instagram or a press conference, as consolation to us plebs.
Remember changing oil and tinkering under the hood? Even washing and waxing your car?
Are you actualy saying that you are not ‘allowed’ to wash or wax your car now?
Is that your serious ‘cry for freedom’? Dear God, how oppressed you are; one day, your people will rise up! The Greatest Generation!
Are you actualy saying that you are not ‘allowed’ to wash or wax your car now?
Is that your serious ‘cry for freedom’? Dear God, how oppressed you are; one day, your people will rise up! The Greatest Generation!
What about the joys of changing your own oil or fiddling under the hood? Then there is the diminution in road trips, Sunday drives and cruising, due to the cost of fuel. Ah, well, we save the environment—I mean fuel—for all the people who gotta jet here and there. They’ll send us an Instagram or a press conference, as consolation to us plebs.
Remember changing oil and tinkering under the hood? Even washing and waxing your car?
Driving is not allowed to be a joyful experience any more.
My heart goes out to you. My Golf GTi (RIP) was an 80s model. The first time I drove a computerised car (Merc.A series Sport) the warning beeps so startled me I reversed into a stone wall. Driving, like so much else nowadays, is creepingly depleting our self-reliance and atrophying our brains. And taking the joy out of it – the joy of being alive.
Great observations by Mary as always. Is this not also our own fault too though? If we subscribe to such products then more will be produced. The car reference is very valid, I have a new Golf GTi, but it’s a joyless experience, dampened with needless tech that irritates and baffles. If there’s an alternative made without the nonsense I’ll get that next, if not, I’ll be getting an older car.
We are always at peril of being imprisoned by our thoughts, or rather by the thought that our thoughts are everything. The digital world has increased this risk by steadily removing the disconfirmation of the real world. To be imprisoned by one’s own thoughts is hell or what Buddhists refer to as suffering.
We are always at peril of being imprisoned by our thoughts, or rather by the thought that our thoughts are everything. The digital world has increased this risk by steadily removing the disconfirmation of the real world. To be imprisoned by one’s own thoughts is hell or what Buddhists refer to as suffering.
Wow .. another superb piece of writing from Mary. The one thing I worry about is how humans are losing their tactile ability .. the very thing that makes us human. We don’t even seem to think about the body-mind connection (in that order) and how digitization is eroding our intelligence and skills. I watched a very interesting podcast of Lex Friedman and Neal Stephenson – Neal was talking about how he likes to build things in his workshop after designing them using some CAD software. Lex (and this may have just been to engage him in debate) asked why he needed to actually build it and suggested that just leaving it designed and “making” in a meta/AI universe and showing it to his friends in the meta world would be just as satisfying. Neal didn’t really take the bait as he seems generally congenial and reserved guy, but I haven’t been able to stop thinking about that exchange. Wow, so this is what young people think .. no wonder everyone is dissatisfied, anxious, and aimless.
Wow .. another superb piece of writing from Mary. The one thing I worry about is how humans are losing their tactile ability .. the very thing that makes us human. We don’t even seem to think about the body-mind connection (in that order) and how digitization is eroding our intelligence and skills. I watched a very interesting podcast of Lex Friedman and Neal Stephenson – Neal was talking about how he likes to build things in his workshop after designing them using some CAD software. Lex (and this may have just been to engage him in debate) asked why he needed to actually build it and suggested that just leaving it designed and “making” in a meta/AI universe and showing it to his friends in the meta world would be just as satisfying. Neal didn’t really take the bait as he seems generally congenial and reserved guy, but I haven’t been able to stop thinking about that exchange. Wow, so this is what young people think .. no wonder everyone is dissatisfied, anxious, and aimless.
There’s another force at work here in addition to the one described by Mary Harrington: the orthodoxy of corporate innovation. One of its core principles is that every new idea is simply a combination of existing ideas. This is called combinatorial creativity. and in the organisational world it’s pretty much the only kind of creativity. Idea generation (aka ideation) sessions based on Osborn-style brainstorming and other diverge-then-converge methods work by flushing already existing ideas from the recesses of participants’ memories. In the 1930s, Napoleon Hill, author of Think and Grow Rich, used the term “synthetic imagination” to label the faculty responsible producing derivative ideas. He contrasted this with “creative imagination”, by which we produce truly new ideas. Let’s have more of it.
There’s another force at work here in addition to the one described by Mary Harrington: the orthodoxy of corporate innovation. One of its core principles is that every new idea is simply a combination of existing ideas. This is called combinatorial creativity. and in the organisational world it’s pretty much the only kind of creativity. Idea generation (aka ideation) sessions based on Osborn-style brainstorming and other diverge-then-converge methods work by flushing already existing ideas from the recesses of participants’ memories. In the 1930s, Napoleon Hill, author of Think and Grow Rich, used the term “synthetic imagination” to label the faculty responsible producing derivative ideas. He contrasted this with “creative imagination”, by which we produce truly new ideas. Let’s have more of it.
I’ve just realised: it is, of course, Groundhog Day in the US!
Mary sneaked a reference in; i’m surprised our US commenters didn’t pick up on it.
Well spotted!
Well spotted!
I’ve just realised: it is, of course, Groundhog Day in the US!
Mary sneaked a reference in; i’m surprised our US commenters didn’t pick up on it.
Constraint is the king of creativity… Well done Mary Harrington for such an eloquent elaboration of this topic.
My example is from the Baroque era: the various french inspired dance forms such as prelude, gigue, sarabande, double etc. Are key structuring principles across swathes of classical music, from the Renaissance to early classical era. These were liberating constraints on musical creativity because they locked you into a defined rhythm, to a general set of coordinates for repetition and movement as well as a certain spirit united across the musical world.
Many of Bach’s greatest works pivot around these dance forms, some such work being the cello suites, the lute suites and of course there is a beyond. Other greats are S.L. Weiss, John Dowland, Handel, Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Robert de Visée and many more. These people invented modern music through these constraints.
The only constraints we see now are boom boom boom, tick tick tick, whine whine whine, talk talk talk … As in everything modern the loss of substance is from either from lack of, or pure lousy constraint.
But really, the wider issue is that those that know better are either powerless against the mob are too cowardly to buck it. Artists are only capable in a brave world, where suffering exists and I believe artists don’t know how to suffer for their art or their convictions anymore. Bach suffered, joyed and produced immensely, but most of us just want happiness, mediocrity and then a long slow death…
Constraint is the king of creativity… Well done Mary Harrington for such an eloquent elaboration of this topic.
My example is from the Baroque era: the various french inspired dance forms such as prelude, gigue, sarabande, double etc. Are key structuring principles across swathes of classical music, from the Renaissance to early classical era. These were liberating constraints on musical creativity because they locked you into a defined rhythm, to a general set of coordinates for repetition and movement as well as a certain spirit united across the musical world.
Many of Bach’s greatest works pivot around these dance forms, some such work being the cello suites, the lute suites and of course there is a beyond. Other greats are S.L. Weiss, John Dowland, Handel, Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Robert de Visée and many more. These people invented modern music through these constraints.
The only constraints we see now are boom boom boom, tick tick tick, whine whine whine, talk talk talk … As in everything modern the loss of substance is from either from lack of, or pure lousy constraint.
But really, the wider issue is that those that know better are either powerless against the mob are too cowardly to buck it. Artists are only capable in a brave world, where suffering exists and I believe artists don’t know how to suffer for their art or their convictions anymore. Bach suffered, joyed and produced immensely, but most of us just want happiness, mediocrity and then a long slow death…
“the future has disappeared”.
Is that like the end of history? We should be so lucky. It’s coming for you!
How would you have felt about the world in 1939, Polidori?
Would you rather be living then? I assume, from your rants here, that you think it was a great time, at least, far better than now.
It was a joke – Referencing Francis Fukuyama. It isn’t a rant just because you don’t get it.
Unfortunately your reference shows that completely misunderstand Fukuyama.
No great surprise there!
It was a joke. Do you not understand the concept of a joke?
You are coming across as being somewhat “on the spectrum”.
Jokes are usually funny.
You may wish to try that in teh future. Don’t get all upset because your joke isn’t funny and you don’t understand what Fukyama was saying. You are coming across as a bit of a cry baby!
“Jokes are usually funny.”
How would you know? You really are autistic, aren’t you? Fortunately you are not my problem.
Goodbye.
“Jokes are usually funny.”
How would you know? You really are autistic, aren’t you? Fortunately you are not my problem.
Goodbye.
He’s not on the spectrum. He’s just a stupid woke moron.
Maybe you are right. But I have a relative on the spectrum (to a mild degree) and I recognise the mental straitjacket.
Good to hear your catchphrase once more, Dickie! Woke Scum! Gets more intelligent every time you say it….
Is Isla Bryson a man or a woman?
He’s a man – and almost no-one disagrees with that – especially on this page. Not even Nicola Sturgeon! As ever, there are a tiny cabal of activists who think otherwise – though Fox news and others want you to believe it’s a large, powerful, threatening mob (unlike the Jan 6 lot, who were of course a silly group of pranksters, in no way conencted to anything powerful – except the ones who were deep state/FBI plants) – so that they can better sell you stuff. Some people have a ring in their nose with the engraving, ‘property of woke inc’, others, ‘property of the tabloids’. Most avoid either.
He’s a man – and almost no-one disagrees with that – especially on this page. Not even Nicola Sturgeon! As ever, there are a tiny cabal of activists who think otherwise – though Fox news and others want you to believe it’s a large, powerful, threatening mob (unlike the Jan 6 lot, who were of course a silly group of pranksters, in no way conencted to anything powerful – except the ones who were deep state/FBI plants) – so that they can better sell you stuff. Some people have a ring in their nose with the engraving, ‘property of woke inc’, others, ‘property of the tabloids’. Most avoid either.
Is Isla Bryson a man or a woman?
Maybe you are right. But I have a relative on the spectrum (to a mild degree) and I recognise the mental straitjacket.
Good to hear your catchphrase once more, Dickie! Woke Scum! Gets more intelligent every time you say it….
Jokes are usually funny.
You may wish to try that in teh future. Don’t get all upset because your joke isn’t funny and you don’t understand what Fukyama was saying. You are coming across as a bit of a cry baby!
He’s not on the spectrum. He’s just a stupid woke moron.
Yet another pretentious ‘Plastic Paddy’.
You and the other two, who names currently escape me, would be far happier bleating on ‘Socialist Worker’, would you not?
You have NO place here, which should be blindingly obvious?
Another one cancelling dissenting opinions. This site gets more snowflakey by the day, Charlie. Maybe they should change the name from the clearly mistaken ‘UnHerd’ to ‘Safespace’, then you could all sit together and have a good old cry, safe from any nasty people laughing at your performative victimhood.
By the way, you’re clearly very pleased with this term “Plastic Paddy” of yours- what does it mean? Is it just a short-trousered euphemism for ‘Irish’, or does it mean more than that? I’m sure Plastic Padding used to be a car body repair brand.
It means more than that. A lot more.
Sadly I cannot claim credit for the expression‘Plastic Paddy’ but surely the meaning is clear enough? I do however think I may have been one of the first to use the similar expression ‘Kerrygold Republic’.
Incidentally nobody is “cancelling “ anybody (whatever that means!).
It is just a case of “I can resist everything except temptation” as Wilde so beautifully put it, and Mr McNeil is just TOO tempting a target as I am sure you will agree?
Anyway “two pints of Black & Tan Mr Holland, and make it snappy!”
Joe Biden is a famous Plastic Paddy.
Here is a succinct definition for you:
“A person who retains a strong sense of Irish cultural identity despite not having been born in Ireland or being of only partial (if any) Irish descent; generally used in reference to Irish-English or Irish-Americans. Perceived as irritating poseurs by Irish nationals.”
Surprised you didn’t know John.
Thank you for educating Holland.
Thanks Chas!
So you used this term to describe someone solely on account of a surname that sounded a bit ‘Irish’ to you, with no reference to anything else in the context of the debate or anything they said.
That’s quite wonderfully stupid! Well done. I consider myself “educated” in the mind-set of the happily idiotic. It’s always good to plumb the depths….
Tut, tut, ‘Baby’ Holland you are getting carried away.
A ‘Plastic Paddy’ is usually condemned by his own words, surely you’ve noticed that?
Tut, tut, ‘Baby’ Holland you are getting carried away.
A ‘Plastic Paddy’ is usually condemned by his own words, surely you’ve noticed that?
Thanks Chas!
So you used this term to describe someone solely on account of a surname that sounded a bit ‘Irish’ to you, with no reference to anything else in the context of the debate or anything they said.
That’s quite wonderfully stupid! Well done. I consider myself “educated” in the mind-set of the happily idiotic. It’s always good to plumb the depths….
..And yet in the context of the thread, there was no connection whatsoever except for a name that might have had an Irish connection. Nothing to do with anything said, or anything to do with the actual argument.
So- ‘I can’t come up with a meaningful argument, but your name is a bit Irish-sounding’.
Well done. Another victory for the Socratic method. Well done chaps!
Thank you for educating Holland.
..And yet in the context of the thread, there was no connection whatsoever except for a name that might have had an Irish connection. Nothing to do with anything said, or anything to do with the actual argument.
So- ‘I can’t come up with a meaningful argument, but your name is a bit Irish-sounding’.
Well done. Another victory for the Socratic method. Well done chaps!
It means more than that. A lot more.
Sadly I cannot claim credit for the expression‘Plastic Paddy’ but surely the meaning is clear enough? I do however think I may have been one of the first to use the similar expression ‘Kerrygold Republic’.
Incidentally nobody is “cancelling “ anybody (whatever that means!).
It is just a case of “I can resist everything except temptation” as Wilde so beautifully put it, and Mr McNeil is just TOO tempting a target as I am sure you will agree?
Anyway “two pints of Black & Tan Mr Holland, and make it snappy!”
Joe Biden is a famous Plastic Paddy.
Here is a succinct definition for you:
“A person who retains a strong sense of Irish cultural identity despite not having been born in Ireland or being of only partial (if any) Irish descent; generally used in reference to Irish-English or Irish-Americans. Perceived as irritating poseurs by Irish nationals.”
Surprised you didn’t know John.
Another one cancelling dissenting opinions. This site gets more snowflakey by the day, Charlie. Maybe they should change the name from the clearly mistaken ‘UnHerd’ to ‘Safespace’, then you could all sit together and have a good old cry, safe from any nasty people laughing at your performative victimhood.
By the way, you’re clearly very pleased with this term “Plastic Paddy” of yours- what does it mean? Is it just a short-trousered euphemism for ‘Irish’, or does it mean more than that? I’m sure Plastic Padding used to be a car body repair brand.
It was a joke. Do you not understand the concept of a joke?
You are coming across as being somewhat “on the spectrum”.
Yet another pretentious ‘Plastic Paddy’.
You and the other two, who names currently escape me, would be far happier bleating on ‘Socialist Worker’, would you not?
You have NO place here, which should be blindingly obvious?
Unfortunately your reference shows that completely misunderstand Fukuyama.
No great surprise there!
It was a joke – Referencing Francis Fukuyama. It isn’t a rant just because you don’t get it.
How would you have felt about the world in 1939, Polidori?
Would you rather be living then? I assume, from your rants here, that you think it was a great time, at least, far better than now.
“the future has disappeared”.
Is that like the end of history? We should be so lucky. It’s coming for you!
Hmm. Seems like Mary has been channeling the works of Iain McGilchrist. It’s that darned left hemisphere, Mary. And it is only going to get worse!
Haha! And perhaps Rick Rubin (Def Jam records etc) too. If you’ve not yet read The Creative Act, it’s an inspiring and refreshing bit of writing. Neil Strauss (remember him?) made some sort of contribution. It’s also a beautiful object.
I looked up The Creative Act and saw the subtitle is ‘A Way Of Being’. Interesting. I will definitely check it out since my personal path into trying to understand things has always been music, even before I understood why. Thanks for the tip!
I looked up The Creative Act and saw the subtitle is ‘A Way Of Being’. Interesting. I will definitely check it out since my personal path into trying to understand things has always been music, even before I understood why. Thanks for the tip!
Haha! And perhaps Rick Rubin (Def Jam records etc) too. If you’ve not yet read The Creative Act, it’s an inspiring and refreshing bit of writing. Neil Strauss (remember him?) made some sort of contribution. It’s also a beautiful object.
Hmm. Seems like Mary has been channeling the works of Iain McGilchrist. It’s that darned left hemisphere, Mary. And it is only going to get worse!
Goldeneye on the Switch. COOL
Goldeneye on the Switch. COOL
The coprophagy scene is sparkling with bon mots, verve & joie-de-vivre. Don’t know what the writer’s on about.
The coprophagy scene is sparkling with bon mots, verve & joie-de-vivre. Don’t know what the writer’s on about.
Does anyone know where to find the “great deal of subterranean argument online about the whys and wherefores of creating ‘dissident art'” that Mary refers to? In my naivete, or impatience, I googled “dissident art'” and predictably the results were ads for Che posters and so on, or else identitarian “art”.
Does anyone know where to find the “great deal of subterranean argument online about the whys and wherefores of creating ‘dissident art'” that Mary refers to? In my naivete, or impatience, I googled “dissident art'” and predictably the results were ads for Che posters and so on, or else identitarian “art”.
Of course anyone who thinks that Tucker Carlson stands for the truth is already too irretrievably stupid to understand anything…
I don’t think that she actually does think that. Your mind, Graeme, has all the subtlety of a breezeblock khazi.
What you “think” and what is actually true are rarely the same thing.
It is literally there is black and white:
“He speaks for many in standing for the truth”
Is your reading comprehension that bad?
Better than yours. You see Graeme, you have to comprehend the whole piece, and not just rip sentences out of their context.
OK then, why don’t you explain how the words “He (Tucker Carlson) speaks for many in standing for the truth” doesn’t mean that the writer thinks that Tucker Carlson stands for the truth.
This should entertaining!!!
“doesn’t mean that the writer thinks that Tucker Carlson stands for the truth.” In that particular instance. As in stopped clocks.
Spectrum boy is getting overexcited.
Goodbye.
Embarrassed yourself there, sunshine.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out… you won’t be missed.
‘He stands for many in standing for the truth”, doesn’t mean he stands for the truth.
Of course. That makes total sense. Thank you for explaining it so lucidly, and for not demeaning yourself with silly slurs about people’s supposed mental conditions. You are an exemplar to us all.
Many of his wilder posts seem to have been pulled, so I can’t be the only person who recognises that Graeme McNeil has a problem.
Thanks, Doctor.
Your considered and learned diagnosis is noted.
Stop babbling. Go and get a life. Though, that is probably the one thing that you will never succeed in doing.
Good argument, concerning the psychology of autism in the context of random online diagnosese.
Well done.
Good argument, concerning the psychology of autism in the context of random online diagnosese.
Well done.
Stop babbling. Go and get a life. Though, that is probably the one thing that you will never succeed in doing.
Thanks, Doctor.
Your considered and learned diagnosis is noted.
Many of his wilder posts seem to have been pulled, so I can’t be the only person who recognises that Graeme McNeil has a problem.
Embarrassed yourself there, sunshine.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out… you won’t be missed.
‘He stands for many in standing for the truth”, doesn’t mean he stands for the truth.
Of course. That makes total sense. Thank you for explaining it so lucidly, and for not demeaning yourself with silly slurs about people’s supposed mental conditions. You are an exemplar to us all.
.
“doesn’t mean that the writer thinks that Tucker Carlson stands for the truth.” In that particular instance. As in stopped clocks.
Spectrum boy is getting overexcited.
Goodbye.
.
OK then, why don’t you explain how the words “He (Tucker Carlson) speaks for many in standing for the truth” doesn’t mean that the writer thinks that Tucker Carlson stands for the truth.
This should entertaining!!!
Like everybody else Tucker does not stand for the truth all the time. Nor does he, like everyone else, never stand for the truth. The question is when he does and that is the subjective part. Personally, I think he stands for the truth depressingly frequently.
Better than yours. You see Graeme, you have to comprehend the whole piece, and not just rip sentences out of their context.
Like everybody else Tucker does not stand for the truth all the time. Nor does he, like everyone else, never stand for the truth. The question is when he does and that is the subjective part. Personally, I think he stands for the truth depressingly frequently.
What you “think” and what is actually true are rarely the same thing.
It is literally there is black and white:
“He speaks for many in standing for the truth”
Is your reading comprehension that bad?
Outre!
By the way, what about the horror of singing contests in costume? Candelabra or Teapot?! The crowd goes wild!
I don’t think that she actually does think that. Your mind, Graeme, has all the subtlety of a breezeblock khazi.
Outre!
By the way, what about the horror of singing contests in costume? Candelabra or Teapot?! The crowd goes wild!
Of course anyone who thinks that Tucker Carlson stands for the truth is already too irretrievably stupid to understand anything…
Link to an article that most readers will find interesting:
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/3208168/why-more-people-want-human-extinction-climate-change-ai-singularity-and-merging-cosmic-flow-data
See: Bruce Springsteen’s Nebraska
Arnold Toynbee in his ” Study of History” warned that once the elites lost their creativity this caused the collapse of civilisations. Polly Toynbee is the grand daughter of AT. QED.
“But there might be a way forward, and it lies in the germ of sense in Carlson’s protest against the “spokescandies”. He speaks for many in standing for the truth that the world isn’t actually weightless and radically liquid.”
Either I don’t understand English or this is bizarre. So if I, and millions of others oppose Carlson’s endless lies and his extreme right-wing stance on ANY subject, we are apparently weightless?
I clicked the link to the comment about Black History Month being more important than water and saw a Tik Tok video lasting just over 40 seconds. The person making that statement was a very young kid, around 14/15 who is either one of the stupidest people on the planet or making a fabulous hoax video.
What could be more weightless than taking such an object and regarding it seriously enough to buttress your argument there is something wrong with culture?
I do think that drawing full-length cartoons by hand lead to a more ‘artistic’ product and I have long complained about the lack of depth of focus in computer generated products; and not just cartoons; the hand drawn simply look better. My other objection is that when they took so long to produce they did not appear frquently whereas now the market is flooded.
But nobody except our churlish author would deny that there have still been some great cartoon films: The Incredibles, Shrek, Toy Story and quite a few more. The major difference between these and Disney originals is they became ‘franchises’.
Mcdonalds and dozens of ‘restaurants’ (for which read food factories) are franchises; are they weightless, while indisputably repetitive? The Saturday morning serials I watched in the cinema were repetitive and franchises.
Repetition and its significance is not new in our modern culture. Read Walter Benjamin:
https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
As for the idea that somehow nobody now is making original, or significant art, some of which may not be appreciated until decades later, that’s for the birds. Those with only one wing, on the right.
“But there might be a way forward, and it lies in the germ of sense in Carlson’s protest against the “spokescandies”. He speaks for many in standing for the truth that the world isn’t actually weightless and radically liquid.”
Either I don’t understand English or this is bizarre. So if I, and millions of others oppose Carlson’s endless lies and his extreme right-wing stance on ANY subject, we are apparently weightless?
I clicked the link to the comment about Black History Month being more important than water and saw a Tik Tok video lasting just over 40 seconds. The person making that statement was a very young kid, around 14/15 who is either one of the stupidest people on the planet or making a fabulous hoax video.
What could be more weightless than taking such an object and regarding it seriously enough to buttress your argument there is something wrong with culture?
I do think that drawing full-length cartoons by hand lead to a more ‘artistic’ product and I have long complained about the lack of depth of focus in computer generated products; and not just cartoons; the hand drawn simply look better. My other objection is that when they took so long to produce they did not appear frquently whereas now the market is flooded.
But nobody except our churlish author would deny that there have still been some great cartoon films: The Incredibles, Shrek, Toy Story and quite a few more. The major difference between these and Disney originals is they became ‘franchises’.
Mcdonalds and dozens of ‘restaurants’ (for which read food factories) are franchises; are they weightless, while indisputably repetitive? The Saturday morning serials I watched in the cinema were repetitive and franchises.
Repetition and its significance is not new in our modern culture. Read Walter Benjamin:
https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
As for the idea that somehow nobody now is making original, or significant art, some of which may not be appreciated until decades later, that’s for the birds. Those with only one wing, on the right.
The most Unherd article yet? Written specifically for the gammons to complain about how everything used to be better and “woke” has ruined the world?
Lots of very predictable comments below!
The most Unherd article yet? Written specifically for the gammons to complain about how everything used to be better and “woke” has ruined the world?
Lots of very predictable comments below!
This writer specialises in specious attempts to rope together a range of arbitrary but fashionable cultural whinges into an utterly unconvincing and incoherent whole.
Somehow making bread, Covid and ‘woke’ adverts involving insufficiently sexy cartoon characters are cajoled into some vague attempt at a cultural critique along with all the standard Fox talking points, tied together with the unexamined and meaningless cliches about the “elites” and the creative “class”, as if the author’s day-job was taking in washing for the local miners, rather than making a nice living opining about the evils of the ‘laptop economy’, on her laptop. It’s merely a collection of all the usual go-to talking points of the ‘why-oh-why’ brigade desperately pretending to be a cogent argument about….something. She doesn’t seem to quite know what, beyond not much liking some stuff.
The fact that an article that thinks it’s making a stand against “cultural remixes” spends half its length regurgitating a recent unHerd article by Matthew Crawford is almost, but not quite, funny.
This writer specialises in specious attempts to rope together a range of arbitrary but fashionable cultural whinges into an utterly unconvincing and incoherent whole.
Somehow making bread, Covid and ‘woke’ adverts involving insufficiently sexy cartoon characters are cajoled into some vague attempt at a cultural critique along with all the standard Fox talking points, tied together with the unexamined and meaningless cliches about the “elites” and the creative “class”, as if the author’s day-job was taking in washing for the local miners, rather than making a nice living opining about the evils of the ‘laptop economy’, on her laptop. It’s merely a collection of all the usual go-to talking points of the ‘why-oh-why’ brigade desperately pretending to be a cogent argument about….something. She doesn’t seem to quite know what, beyond not much liking some stuff.
The fact that an article that thinks it’s making a stand against “cultural remixes” spends half its length regurgitating a recent unHerd article by Matthew Crawford is almost, but not quite, funny.
I think this article is the perfect self referential example of itself. Yet another whey-faced intellectual moaning about how awful things are, and how much better they were in olden times. How wonderfully meta.
We oldies do not claim that the past was so good. We simply wanted a better future than the one that is developing around us – Woke dumbdown with 72 genders.
But Jason, things were better before the Rushdie Book Burn began a collapse in our creative freedoms and commitment to freedom of expression. Mary is ignoring the ideological dimension to the problem of ‘creativity’. Terfs harangued by the State Militia
Army squads monitoring us online in lockdown
It is not that our craven elite are freely making bad lazy commercial creative choices. Those days ended around 2010. They ARE the unitary sewn up centipede swilling aggressive toxic STATE diktat and credo shit into all our mouths.
But we can gain some comfort from WEF’s mission: “committed to improving the state of the world”
“Terfs”?
Are you promoting the voices of feminists here, Walter? Surely not. It’s funny how the ‘exciting’ new culture wars around ‘gender’ are leading the sort of people who spent their lives regarding feminism (as one commenter here did the other day) a “cancer of society”, suddenly finding common cause with their old mortal enemy.
The guiding mantra of much on-line ‘opinionating’ now is ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. Still, you’re obviously enjoyig yourself, with all that “toxic STATE diktat and credo shit” (sic) into your mouth. Bon appetite!
Is Isla Bryson a man or a woman?
He’s a man – and almost no-one disagrees with that – especially on this page. Not even Nicola Sturgeon! As ever, there are a tiny cabal of activists who think otherwise – though Fox news and others want you to believe it’s a large, powerful, threatening mob (unlike the Jan 6 lot, who were of course a silly group of pranksters, in no way conencted to anything powerful – except the ones who were deep state/FBI plants) – so that they can better sell you stuff. Some people have a ring in their nose with the engraving, ‘property of woke inc’, others, ‘property of the tabloids’. Most avoid either.
I neither know nor much care. Is this a massive concern for you, given the existential crisis you seem to be experiencing right now?
He’s a man – and almost no-one disagrees with that – especially on this page. Not even Nicola Sturgeon! As ever, there are a tiny cabal of activists who think otherwise – though Fox news and others want you to believe it’s a large, powerful, threatening mob (unlike the Jan 6 lot, who were of course a silly group of pranksters, in no way conencted to anything powerful – except the ones who were deep state/FBI plants) – so that they can better sell you stuff. Some people have a ring in their nose with the engraving, ‘property of woke inc’, others, ‘property of the tabloids’. Most avoid either.
I neither know nor much care. Is this a massive concern for you, given the existential crisis you seem to be experiencing right now?
Is Isla Bryson a man or a woman?
But we can gain some comfort from WEF’s mission: “committed to improving the state of the world”
“Terfs”?
Are you promoting the voices of feminists here, Walter? Surely not. It’s funny how the ‘exciting’ new culture wars around ‘gender’ are leading the sort of people who spent their lives regarding feminism (as one commenter here did the other day) a “cancer of society”, suddenly finding common cause with their old mortal enemy.
The guiding mantra of much on-line ‘opinionating’ now is ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. Still, you’re obviously enjoyig yourself, with all that “toxic STATE diktat and credo shit” (sic) into your mouth. Bon appetite!
You got there before me. A lot of Unherd commenters love to complain about Islington elites, overly-complicated acadamese, snowflakery etc, and profess a deep respect for history, small c conservatism, a sense of perspective, wisdom; and yet, like a moth to flame….
“Be careful who you choose as your enemy because that’s who you become most like. “
You both sound pretty desperate to me, “Dom”. You are the ones with the gender fixation. How many do you have today ? 52? 72? 102?
What is that response supposed to actually MEAN?
“Both”? Both who? And why do you think he has a “gender fixation”, given that it was your blathering about “72 genders”, or whatever odd fixation you have, in the first place.
Utter drivel. Try harder.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
What is that response supposed to actually MEAN?
“Both”? Both who? And why do you think he has a “gender fixation”, given that it was your blathering about “72 genders”, or whatever odd fixation you have, in the first place.
Utter drivel. Try harder.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
You both sound pretty desperate to me, “Dom”. You are the ones with the gender fixation. How many do you have today ? 52? 72? 102?
Wow. A net 24 downvotes. This is my best score, yet!
Hell hath no fury like a pearl-clutcher scorned.
Um… You are the one being scorned.
Whoosh
Is Whoosh the sound you make as you rush back to your safe space, you poor little thing?
And yet this site is a “safe space”, which is exactly why anyone not following the herd mentality of reactionary fury with the modern world is greeted with such resentment.
You hate hearing a different opinion, it really seems to upset you- so you want to cancel them. Which is ironic.
There are thousands of websites that cater to your world view and very few that allow alternative ones. The fact that no-one here is clamoring to have your puerile comments removed goes to show how open-minded many Unherd commenters are. Conversely, rather than adding much to the topic at hand, you seem intent on ‘poisoning the well” by projecting your faults on to others.
There are thousands of websites that cater to your world view and very few that allow alternative ones. The fact that no-one here is clamoring to have your puerile comments removed goes to show how open-minded many Unherd commenters are. Conversely, rather than adding much to the topic at hand, you seem intent on ‘poisoning the well” by projecting your faults on to others.
It is the sound of things flying over your head.
Okay. What flew over my head – Exactly?
Okay. What flew over my head – Exactly?
And yet this site is a “safe space”, which is exactly why anyone not following the herd mentality of reactionary fury with the modern world is greeted with such resentment.
You hate hearing a different opinion, it really seems to upset you- so you want to cancel them. Which is ironic.
It is the sound of things flying over your head.
Is Whoosh the sound you make as you rush back to your safe space, you poor little thing?
Whoosh
Um… You are the one being scorned.
I just upvoted to reduce the deficit. Yes this is definitaley a case of – it was all better in the olden days- yes of course elements of culture are dumbed down, rapid introduction of technology and the massive increase in ‘content’, whether it be blogs, books, films has shortened our concentration span – some commentator only give a film ten minutes by the sounds of it- I understand from one of my sons studying film that this is why some films shoe horn everything into the first segment distorting the flow of events. But there is still much genuine creativity going on in all areas however it does not get commodified to the same extent therefore not made popular. – just ignore all the putrid crap. Or the article writer has chosen to ignore the good stuff which I still see a lot of and am amazed by.
oh yes and please if I ever get to time travel – never take me back to the 1970’s – surely that was the worst period culturally?
It was awful. Only two genders!
It was awful. Only two genders!
Hell hath no fury like a pearl-clutcher scorned.
I just upvoted to reduce the deficit. Yes this is definitaley a case of – it was all better in the olden days- yes of course elements of culture are dumbed down, rapid introduction of technology and the massive increase in ‘content’, whether it be blogs, books, films has shortened our concentration span – some commentator only give a film ten minutes by the sounds of it- I understand from one of my sons studying film that this is why some films shoe horn everything into the first segment distorting the flow of events. But there is still much genuine creativity going on in all areas however it does not get commodified to the same extent therefore not made popular. – just ignore all the putrid crap. Or the article writer has chosen to ignore the good stuff which I still see a lot of and am amazed by.
oh yes and please if I ever get to time travel – never take me back to the 1970’s – surely that was the worst period culturally?
Jason,
Have a little something to eat. You’ll feel better.
Someone’s Mom
Do you really look forward to this?…..”while futurists predict a deluge of automated content in every field from art to pornography that will swamp our ability to tell who is human — or to care.”
To be honest, it is already difficult to tell who is human with all the facial “work” that people get and the piercing, tats, hair extensions and other various deformations employed in order to stand out in the crowd these days.
This is wonderful. -36! I don’t think I’ve ever had such a reaction to a comment. My point, for what it’s worth, is that this article complaining that everything nowadays is unoriginal and boring was in itself wholly unoriginal and boring. Also, I know we all suffer from nostalgia bias, believing that everything a few decades previously was much better; creativity, health, quality of life, etc, but even a cursory glance at the media of the time will confirm that it wasn’t, and everyone at that time believed that a few decades previous to them was a golden era. Po-faced Mary and many of the commenters here cannot look at the world today and see anything but incompetence, meanness and decay. But it really isn’t like that.
There are four things you can criticise on Unherd that will lead to rapid, multiple downticks – the Catholic church (traditional version); Brexit; Trump supporters, and Mary Harrington. Also any supportive comment on Biden, the EU, modernity, will draw rapid ire.
I can’t work out why this site- which has contributers of various ideologies- attracts such a uniformly and biliously reactionary type of commenter.
Despite the very name of the blog being a call to ‘unherd’-like thinking, the BTL comments are an excercise is lazy group-think, a ‘safe-space’ for right-wing ranters who invariable react to any alternative view with outrage and ‘cancelling’.
This comment will, of course, make them furious.
I’d been pondering this myself; I really don’t get it. Maybe the Daily Mail and the Telegraph aren’t running to as many pages these days.
I’d been pondering this myself; I really don’t get it. Maybe the Daily Mail and the Telegraph aren’t running to as many pages these days.
Well if the response upset you so much, don’t do it. Clutching pearls, as you said yourself.
You clearly come from a generation that believes it is entitled to respect – You ain’t. Welcome to the real world.
You are so off. I am not of the young generation, I am not ‘upset’. I am not left wing. I work in the private sector, own business, I enjoy real debate, not circle-jerks of the right or left.
I call that boll*x on stilts.
Now you know me better than myself. Not lacking in self-esteem are you….or perhaps you are?
Now you know me better than myself. Not lacking in self-esteem are you….or perhaps you are?
I call that boll*x on stilts.
You are so off. I am not of the young generation, I am not ‘upset’. I am not left wing. I work in the private sector, own business, I enjoy real debate, not circle-jerks of the right or left.
I can’t work out why this site- which has contributers of various ideologies- attracts such a uniformly and biliously reactionary type of commenter.
Despite the very name of the blog being a call to ‘unherd’-like thinking, the BTL comments are an excercise is lazy group-think, a ‘safe-space’ for right-wing ranters who invariable react to any alternative view with outrage and ‘cancelling’.
This comment will, of course, make them furious.
Well if the response upset you so much, don’t do it. Clutching pearls, as you said yourself.
You clearly come from a generation that believes it is entitled to respect – You ain’t. Welcome to the real world.
Yes, there is nostalgia but that is not a reason not to be critical of where things are going now. It is not nostalgia saying we have a lot less freedom and counting. It is not nostalgia saying writers are prescribed and muzzled.
Compared to when? The UK pre-1960? How are they proscribed (I assume that’s what you meant) and muzzled in the West?
Compared to when? The UK pre-1960? How are they proscribed (I assume that’s what you meant) and muzzled in the West?
Why do you care about downvotes anyway? Is it Teenage Insecurity Syndrome? Stop counting!
PS: I couldn’t give a pair of dingo’s kidneys what you think – about anything..
There are four things you can criticise on Unherd that will lead to rapid, multiple downticks – the Catholic church (traditional version); Brexit; Trump supporters, and Mary Harrington. Also any supportive comment on Biden, the EU, modernity, will draw rapid ire.
Yes, there is nostalgia but that is not a reason not to be critical of where things are going now. It is not nostalgia saying we have a lot less freedom and counting. It is not nostalgia saying writers are prescribed and muzzled.
Why do you care about downvotes anyway? Is it Teenage Insecurity Syndrome? Stop counting!
PS: I couldn’t give a pair of dingo’s kidneys what you think – about anything..
This article is an hilarious example of fake culture, despite its protestations to the contrary.
Essentially, it’s a long diatribe against contemporary computer-driven culture, the “laptop economy”, and the ‘elite classes’ who are using it to control our thoughts, in favour of the artisan’s life of ‘making’ and the deep satisfaction of physical work; written by someone who earns a living tapping out their personal ‘cultural’ opinions to online subscribers, who all then fire off on their laptops online messages of agreement, and being very angry with anyone who doesn’t (37 down votes and counting).
Very funny. Meta, indeed.
Alas, my comment is now awaiting approval. I assume someone has reported it for saying nasty things about the sainted Mary
Reinstated! Now minus 44. Hurrah!
Well done! But others have done better, even a minus 86 on one occasion!
I think I’ve peaked at -50. Must try harder!
I think I’ve peaked at -50. Must try harder!
Well done! But others have done better, even a minus 86 on one occasion!
Reinstated! Now minus 44. Hurrah!
Alas, my comment is now awaiting approval. I assume someone has reported it for saying nasty things about the sainted Mary
We oldies do not claim that the past was so good. We simply wanted a better future than the one that is developing around us – Woke dumbdown with 72 genders.
But Jason, things were better before the Rushdie Book Burn began a collapse in our creative freedoms and commitment to freedom of expression. Mary is ignoring the ideological dimension to the problem of ‘creativity’. Terfs harangued by the State Militia
Army squads monitoring us online in lockdown
It is not that our craven elite are freely making bad lazy commercial creative choices. Those days ended around 2010. They ARE the unitary sewn up centipede swilling aggressive toxic STATE diktat and credo shit into all our mouths.
You got there before me. A lot of Unherd commenters love to complain about Islington elites, overly-complicated acadamese, snowflakery etc, and profess a deep respect for history, small c conservatism, a sense of perspective, wisdom; and yet, like a moth to flame….
“Be careful who you choose as your enemy because that’s who you become most like. “
Wow. A net 24 downvotes. This is my best score, yet!
Jason,
Have a little something to eat. You’ll feel better.
Someone’s Mom
Do you really look forward to this?…..”while futurists predict a deluge of automated content in every field from art to pornography that will swamp our ability to tell who is human — or to care.”
To be honest, it is already difficult to tell who is human with all the facial “work” that people get and the piercing, tats, hair extensions and other various deformations employed in order to stand out in the crowd these days.
This is wonderful. -36! I don’t think I’ve ever had such a reaction to a comment. My point, for what it’s worth, is that this article complaining that everything nowadays is unoriginal and boring was in itself wholly unoriginal and boring. Also, I know we all suffer from nostalgia bias, believing that everything a few decades previously was much better; creativity, health, quality of life, etc, but even a cursory glance at the media of the time will confirm that it wasn’t, and everyone at that time believed that a few decades previous to them was a golden era. Po-faced Mary and many of the commenters here cannot look at the world today and see anything but incompetence, meanness and decay. But it really isn’t like that.
This article is an hilarious example of fake culture, despite its protestations to the contrary.
Essentially, it’s a long diatribe against contemporary computer-driven culture, the “laptop economy”, and the ‘elite classes’ who are using it to control our thoughts, in favour of the artisan’s life of ‘making’ and the deep satisfaction of physical work; written by someone who earns a living tapping out their personal ‘cultural’ opinions to online subscribers, who all then fire off on their laptops online messages of agreement, and being very angry with anyone who doesn’t (37 down votes and counting).
Very funny. Meta, indeed.
I think this article is the perfect self referential example of itself. Yet another whey-faced intellectual moaning about how awful things are, and how much better they were in olden times. How wonderfully meta.