It’s not a vast conspiracy by George Soros, if that’s what you’re thinking.
» Breaking News
Crystal Gunns/Louisa C. Tuck: School Pressured To Fire Porn Star Turned Lunch Lady
Amber Lynn [Breaking Beauty]
Lindsay Lohan, Samantha Ronson Fight At Dubai Hotel
Russian Billionaire Sergei Rodionov Publishes Book Of Nudes… Of His Wife Olga
Alexis Tyler: Breaking Beauty
Because the arts are biased. Duh!
What rubbish. Was Die Hard great because Hans Gruber was written as a well-rounded humanitarian with only a shade of grey? Was Braveheart great because King Longshanks was just as human as William Wallace? Was It’s a Wonderful Life great because Mr. Potter was simply mis-understood?
In conclusion, then, you don’t have to be a liberal to be a good storyteller. But the better your story is, the more of a liberal you are.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. I cannot stand essays that purport to be ‘deep’ in some meaningful way when its really shallow as a puddle.
I’ve heard it argued (and I tend to agree) that artistic-types are liberal because the act of creating something stands in contrast to conservatism (at least definition #3 in this link: http://m-w.com/dictionary/conservative). If you are creating something (a painting, a novel, a movie about gay cowboys eating pudding), you are not preserving the status quo or adhering to tradition.
This is obviously not to say that there aren’t creative conservatives - it’s just an explanation for why “Hollywood” and “Broadway” are more liberal institutions.
I think it is at least marginally instructive that Farris considers “Die Hard” to be great literature. (or even great movies). And in insisting that “It’s a Wonderful Life” is great even though it’s main villain is largely 2-dimensional, it is also worth noting that at the time of its production this piece of Frank Capra’s filmic craft was considered by the FBI to be Communist propaganda.
Die Hard is a great movie. Of its own genre. It’s not a stunning example of creativity, though.
Farris, you make the mistake of confusing “human” with “humane” I think. Ignoring that Die Hard and Wonderful Life have some of the emptiest plots in the entire history of financially successful cinema (though are both fun to watch, of course) Potter and Gruber for instance were both motivated by that most human of inclinations, outright greed. If either were made out to be some sort of arbitrary sadist or something they would be less identifiable as archetypes and thus less recognizable as human. (regrettably I’ve not seen Braveheart, but I imagine the same probably applies, presuming Longshanks didn’t rape kittens with chainsaws or anything) Conversely, something like the Left Behind books are poorly written because the “human” characters are remarkably dispassionate about, for instance, the massive worldwide disappearance that happened a week or so ago, and more intent on watching UN proceedings, which is notably inhuman behavior. (not necessarily inhumane, just saying that people wouldn’t actually be the way depicted)
Two points:
1.) Braveheart was overrated.
2.) I think you may be be first person to call Die Hard artistic.
And as a bonus…
3.) It’s A Wonderful Life has an incredibly simplistic story, however, the conflict is not between Mr. Potter and George Bailey, it’s between what George Bailey wants to do, and the responsibilities that keep getting forced on him.
Most artists are liberal because art is deeply steeped in emotionalism - in the heart as opposed to the head. Artists tend to see things in black and white - and in the extremes. Hitler was an artist.
Great storytellers are not great artists. A story, to be great, has to resonate as believeable. This a realist, as opposed to an artist, can do better.
“Most artists are liberal because art is deeply steeped in emotionalism - in the heart as opposed to the head. Artists tend to see things in black and white - and in the extremes.”
No. To create you need to be able to see more than just one layer, this is diametrically opposed to that way of thinking.
“Hitler was an artist.”
Hitler was also a Christian. Which do you think had more to do with him trying to exterminate the Jews?
“Great storytellers are not great artists. A story, to be great, has to resonate as believeable. This a realist, as opposed to an artist, can do better.”
Realist as opposed to an artist. … Do you even pay attention to what you type? Cause I don’t think you can come up with something that stupid using conscious thought.
There’s a whole school of art called Realism.
Dugger, are you aware that online arguments that take the form, “You know who ELSE was an artist/wore khakis/had facial hair? HITLER!” Is pretty much an internet punchline ?
I swear, this is the first non-ironic use of that argument I’ve seen in at least a couple of years.
I don’t think Hitler was a Christian He used Christianity to be sure and he was born a Catholic, but his religion was national socialism and Germany.
“Hitler’s private statements are more mixed. There are negative statements about Christianity reported by Hitler’s intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann.[10] Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: “The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay.” ‘
And the ‘more than one layer’ is often the artist’s interpretation of non-physical (ie, non existent)attributes that he ’sees’ - things he thinks are there.
Does it occur to you that in arguing for art being realistic, you tell me (which I already knew) there is ‘a’ Realist school? What are the implications of that statement. Think about it.
Hitler was an artist.
No… Hitler was a shitty artist. He was rejected from art school constantly because of his inability to understand/convey emotion in his human subjects, his lack of perspective and dimension in his landscapes, and having an utterly awful sense of composition. This is why he painted postcards, because that was the only way he could make money at it. Hitler, in other words, was such an utter failure as an artist precisely because he saw the world in black and white.
Let’s leave Hitler out of this. I don’t think he was ever on Leno, or Letterman discussing foreign policy.
About a jillion movie stars and pop singers have been.
So, let’s talk about them, OK?
I’ve never given this much thought, so we’re all even — sorry, Dugger — but here goes.
These people play “Let’s Pretend” for about half a year and make millions. That’s bound to make some of them feel guilty. They are probably often characterized, if not blatantly accused, of being shallow self - centered people.
Look at Paris Hilton. She is actually a working director of a fashion and toiletries company, and yet she is everywhere portrayed as a ditzy blond spending Daddy’s trust fund.
If she goes to jail for 45 days, she’ll come out wearing “corn rows” and ranting about “prison reform”.
The celebrities cry out like Fredo in Godfather III, “I can handle things! I’m smart! Not like everybody says… like dumb… I’m smart and I want respect!”
And, of course, if you take a superficial, “motion picture / television / sitcom” view of the world, what do you see?
Liberals care…
Liberals are nice…
And there you have it!
Hi Frank. We’re discussing artistic sensibilities and how they potentially correlate to worldviews and subsequently, political ideologies in this thread. Feel free to participate with anything remotely related. If you just want to play “Hollywood sux a’cause I say!” could you do it elsewhere? The grown-ups are trying to talk. Thanks, friend.
Rex, just because your words are polysyllabic, doesn’t mean they are either significant or substantive.
Are you actually saying that my comment doesn’t measure up to the quality of:
Because the arts are biased. Duh!
it is also worth noting that at the time of its production this piece of Frank Capra’s filmic craft was considered by the FBI to be Communist propaganda.
Die Hard is a great movie. Of its own genre. It’s not a stunning example of creativity, though.
Farris, you make the mistake of confusing “human” with “humane” I think.
1.) Braveheart was overrated.
2.) I think you may be be first person to call Die Hard artistic.
Hitler was also a Christian. Which do you think had more to do with him trying to exterminate the Jews?
No… Hitler was a shitty artist.
Excuse me for speaking plainly.
I think I made several valid points.
I think, also, that a statement like, “We’re discussing artistic sensibilities and how they potentially correlate to worldviews and subsequently, political ideologies in this thread”, is the most pretentious line I’ve heard in several decades.
I’m sure you can guess what I am sorely tempted to say. Because I would never be as rude and callous to anyone as you just were to me, I will resist that temptation.
“Are you actually saying that my comment doesn’t measure up to the quality of…”
Quality was not the issue, and of course even you aren’t dense enough to pretend it was. I was making the point that, in a thread about the correlation between artistic sensibilities and the kind of social mindset that tends to produce a liberal viewpoint (oh I do apologize for using big words and seeming pretentious, given how much I honestly truly care what you think of me). Then here you come and decide to rag on your perception of hollywood phonyism, going from Paris Hilton to Godfather III, and basically end on an implied “liberals are shallow and only pretend to care about people” as a sort of central thesis to your ramblings. Your “several valid points” consist entirely of “Hollywood is phony” said repeatedly in different ways. Your comments are basically a threadjack that contributes nothing to the discussion at hand by attempting to turn it into your pet gripe about Holly-weird (hur hur).
Well, my point was that in a thread that runs from Capra to “Duh”, I didn’t feel the need to be quoting Santayana.
My mistake was in not realizing that you were moderating the Seminar.
“I don’t think Hitler was a Christian”
Well, he thought he was Christian. Of course, he thought killing the Jew was doing god’s work, so his opinions on the matter might not be 100% trustworthy.
There is a mountain of evidence that Hitler was Christian, and a few random quotes that can be interpreted as saying otherwise.