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

Some times some people.

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...

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...

Synova

Search This Blog