A Scottish women’s charity said Carpenter’s new album cover evokes “tired tropes” of women being “possessions,” while fans have defended her cover as satirical commentary on sexism.
did “hey let’s eat irish babies” do anything over there or is swift’s only legacy being used as a school lesson? they skipped the part where they should’ve told us if it made a difference.
Honestly have no idea, not one I’m an expert on. Perhaps? I wonder if the efficacy of this style of critique changes depending on society and media literacy rate. Probably? This would also be different historically I assume.
Is this satire? Or full on lampooning? Depicting the other side as giant fucking alien biblical monsters doesn’t seem satirical but a rather direct and clear attack.
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
Right ok but that’s not really the kind of satire we’re talking about is it? I mean, we can get technical about word definitions or we can talk about what we’re actually criticising which is a specific strain of content that depicts something that is only understood to be humour/critique when looking at the subtext of the content using some sort of media literacy.
My point here is that if you don’t need to analyse or read subtext to understand it’s satire, it’s not what we’re talking about when we say satire doesn’t work.
That’s fair. But art still falls into politically useful, politically useless, and politically harmful categories. I’m going to prefer the useful and I’m going to tell people to make more of the useful and less of the useless, while actively trying to prevent the harmful.
With that said. I’m not going to say something useless but entirely unrelated to politics should stop. Just that people making political art could do so in a different and more useful way.
L’art pour l’art arose out of 19th century France when the French bourgeoisie finally controlled the entirety of French society. Art being done for its own sake or being done as a form of self expression arose out of capitalist society. This was 100% not true in feudal society where artists weren’t expected to even credit themselves. Various socialist art movements like socialist realism also eschews l’art pour l’art for its literal bourgeois origins.
The idea of some dirt-poor artist channeling their mental illness to produce sublime art is just some stereotype that arose out of capitalist society.
When I make paintings that nobody but me will see or write poems that nobody will read because I enjoy the process and creating art, I’m doing a liberalism? Lol
I think there are many ways to approach art, but “art for art’s sake” shouldn’t be seen as a model. If anything, it should be treated somewhat dismissively.
Do you have examples of useful satire?
I am willing to debate this and reconsider my view but I never see anyone materially demonstrate its usefulness.
did “hey let’s eat irish babies” do anything over there or is swift’s only legacy being used as a school lesson? they skipped the part where they should’ve told us if it made a difference.
Honestly have no idea, not one I’m an expert on. Perhaps? I wonder if the efficacy of this style of critique changes depending on society and media literacy rate. Probably? This would also be different historically I assume.
yeah there are several sibling chains about riding the line of subtlety and i think that’s mostly a literacy issue.
The name “Vanessa” comes from a poem of his, but I don’t think that’s too relevant to his satire.
i also forgot about a bunch of stuff from gulliver’s travels, but byte-order conventions are probably not relevant either
can’t believe we’re forgetting shrek
Some… BODY!!!
Somebody once told me the world is gonna roll me I ain’t the sharpest tool in the shed
She was looking kind of dumb with her finger and her thumb In the shape of an “L” on her forehead
Well, the years start comin’ and they don’t stop comin’
Fed to the rules and I hit the ground runnin’
I just watched a crash analysis video of Air France flight 447 and right before it slams into the ocean the first officer says “This can’t be true!”
That’s how this post makes me feel
Blazing Saddles single handedly killed an entire (racist as fuck) film genre
Pixar’s Sodas.
Dogcatcher Inataro?
Not sure what this means?
Aamon Animations’ stuff.
Is this satire? Or full on lampooning? Depicting the other side as giant fucking alien biblical monsters doesn’t seem satirical but a rather direct and clear attack.
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
Right ok but that’s not really the kind of satire we’re talking about is it? I mean, we can get technical about word definitions or we can talk about what we’re actually criticising which is a specific strain of content that depicts something that is only understood to be humour/critique when looking at the subtext of the content using some sort of media literacy.
My point here is that if you don’t need to analyse or read subtext to understand it’s satire, it’s not what we’re talking about when we say satire doesn’t work.
This is not an example of satire, it’s surrealism.
I don’t think I even like the initial premise that it’s art’s job to be “materially useful”
That’s fair. But art still falls into politically useful, politically useless, and politically harmful categories. I’m going to prefer the useful and I’m going to tell people to make more of the useful and less of the useless, while actively trying to prevent the harmful.
With that said. I’m not going to say something useless but entirely unrelated to politics should stop. Just that people making political art could do so in a different and more useful way.
L’art pour l’art arose out of 19th century France when the French bourgeoisie finally controlled the entirety of French society. Art being done for its own sake or being done as a form of self expression arose out of capitalist society. This was 100% not true in feudal society where artists weren’t expected to even credit themselves. Various socialist art movements like socialist realism also eschews l’art pour l’art for its literal bourgeois origins.
The idea of some dirt-poor artist channeling their mental illness to produce sublime art is just some stereotype that arose out of capitalist society.
I thought this instrumental funk album I put on was neat, dismayed to learn it’s actually bourgeois decadence.
So we’re not allowed to do art for art’s sake?
When I make paintings that nobody but me will see or write poems that nobody will read because I enjoy the process and creating art, I’m doing a liberalism? Lol
I think there are many ways to approach art, but “art for art’s sake” shouldn’t be seen as a model. If anything, it should be treated somewhat dismissively.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department