3 ms·
And here I was thinking any psyop was necessarily bad.
by Barbing 1mo ago
And here I was thinking any psyop was necessarily bad.
- gigatree 1mo agoAre you saying modern art is positive?
- math-man 1mo agoDo you not appreciate art?
- NordStreamYacht 1mo agoI like bananas. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/nx-s1-5199568/a-duct-taped-banana-sells-for-6-2-million-at-an-art-auction https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/nx-s1-5199568/a-duct-taped-ba...
- innis226 1mo agoOkay, this is a bit too far xD. But I wouldn’t put this in the same bucket as Pollock. I genuinely find his work interesting.
- NordStreamYacht 1mo agoModern art is weird. https://smarthistory.org/andres-serrano-piss-christ/ https://smarthistory.org/andres-serrano-piss-christ/
- evanjrowley 1mo agoThat's postmodern art, not modern art.
- soulofmischief 1mo agoI agree. All I see here is someone following in the footsteps of pioneers such as Andy Warhol. His own pink banana was very polarizing in his time.
- evanjrowley 1mo agoAndy Warhol - also a postmodernist
- soulofmischief 1mo agoYes, I called him a pioneer.
- andrewmlevy 1mo agorelevant! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM4tPXaLYz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM4tPXaLYz8
- evanjrowley 1mo agoThat's postmodern art, not modern art.
- NordStreamYacht 1mo agoSo that's a post-banana?
- bigstrat2003 1mo agoI love art. Contemporary art is a bunch of ugly wankery by pretentious people who are bored of actual beauty and can only amuse themselves by creating ugly stuff, then claiming "you just don't get it". The world would be a significantly better place without contemporary art in it.
- karmakurtisaani 1mo agoThis could have been written at any point after the 1850s or so.
- nine_k 1mo agoIndeed. Once galleries became significant buyers of art, scandalous art became an attractive thing to produce: it commanded outsized attention. The dynamics are similar in Twitter today, too.
- refactor_master 1mo ago1850? I wager we could go all the way back if we tried. > (…) the Italian artist and writer Giorgio Vasari,who used it as early as 1530, calling Gothic art a "monstrous and barbarous" "disorder". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_art
- karmakurtisaani 1mo agoIndeed, I would not be surprised if there was someone calling the first cave paintings awful vandalism. I just thought of mid 1800s, since around that time people got really experimental with different styles of painting.
- dgellow 1mo ago« Too many notes, your majesty » https://youtu.be/H6_eqxh-Qok?si=zGXsyHk_XF3Gu2o_ https://youtu.be/H6_eqxh-Qok?si=zGXsyHk_XF3Gu2o_
- cindyllm 1mo ago
- greenavocado 1mo ago[flagged]
- al_borland 1mo agoShould we appreciate art we were manipulated into liking, or pretending to appreciate? Modern art has been the butt of many jokes over the years. A canvas painted white, a banana duck taped to a wall, literal piles of trash… the bar for what we call art is basically on the floor. A literal bar on the floor, given a good story, could itself be called art. Art generally implies some level of skill. While some modern art can still fall into that category, other stuff requires no real skill, just the right connections and for enough people to buy into the grift.
- colechristensen 1mo agoThe leadership of nations requires you to put pressure on the thoughts and minds of your people, left to their own devices those minds will simply be shaped by someone else. The morality in it comes from your motivation and methods. Secretly giving piles of money to the weirdos you successfully identify as being the leaders of artistic movements to amplify those movements can't be all that bad. The question of the day is if you were the CIA trying to do the same thing today, who and what would you fund?
- left-struck 1mo agoI would fund things which make people less susceptible to manipulation and more equipped to think for themselves. Because I believe in democracy not as a political tool but as a fundamental right. I don’t wish to use democracy to gain more power. But maybe that’s why I’ll never be in that position, to make that choice.
- verisimi 1mo ago> I would fund things which make people less susceptible to manipulation and more equipped to think for themselves. This also would be manipulative. If you think society can provide you freedom, you are looking in the wrong places.
- left-struck 1mo agoHow would that be manipulative?
- verisimi 1mo agoIf you alter people's natural behaviour so that they are less manipulative, do you think this is the same as having not taken that action? It is a (further) unnatural intervention. It would be like giving someone an emetic because they ate too much. The anti-manipulation training or the emetic could be beneficial, I agree. The 'proper' answer would be to address the manipulator, to prevent their interventions, so that they can live their lives naturally, if they are not harming anyone.
- dgellow 1mo agoYeah, if that’s true we should get those people their own agency and let them manage museums