I've got news for you Babs

"Streisand noted that "the artist's role is to disturb,""

Oh really?

Of all the emotions that an artist can envoke, "disturb" is the easiest. It's the cop out. It's the artistic angst of youth that mistakes "disturbing" for art just because it gets a reaction from your elders and lends a guilty thrill to your peers.

What is the artists role? To make us think, certainly. To illuminate the world.

When did art become more pure the more people it could repel?

Interestingly the article describes Babs' Bush skit as only a little bit funny and too long and the audience's response as subdued.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…

The role of the artist is to criticize and lampoon the military, while being protected by the military. The role of Theo Van Gogh is to be sacrificial lambs, to support the military motto of liberty and freedom, while not being protected from the killers by the military.

Who is the real artist, Theo or Hollywood? Not hard for me to say.

6:38 PM

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it. This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice. If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

What Cancel Culture is NOT

Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott. It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...

Synova

Search This Blog