Tag urself. I'm MOCKS THE CONCEPT OF VALUES
https://twitter.com/oldbooksguy/status/1695775948569018481?t=b5YxtrzSkxNBP659ywCYyg&s=19
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
91 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15859 readers
27 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The only real difference between good art and bad art, if there is such a distinction, is whether the art is revolutionary or reactionary. Art that serves revolutionary politics is good while art that wallows in some reactionary nonsense is bad. It's quite telling that values has to either be hinted at or mocked, leaving little room for openly politicized art. Could it be that this loser has reactionary ideas but understands that those reactionary ideas can't be openly expressed so they must be hinted at?
Where can I learn more about reactionary in this sense?
I guess a lot of black metal artists are just outright nazis. Though to be real here, metal seems to be one of the rare occasions fascists can do art. Usually they put out shit.
It's reactionary a metal artist thing?
I honestly don't know, that's why I'm asking. I've never heard of reactionary until I came here.
Reactionary is a word which describes the politics of the far right. It’s a reaction against social progress or against the movements pushing for social progress. Fascism is a reaction against socialism and communism, it’s the current ruling class (these days, the bourgeoisie, but also in the past the aristocracy and monarchs) reacting with violence and repression against the social movements that want to overthrow them or put limits on their power and take power for the working class.
Gotcha, that makes sense. Thanks
Nothing wrong with learning. Sadly, it's fairly common, with DSBM or something like that used to denote the nazi black metal artists. Outside of black metal it's generally less common, but last I heard the Epica vocalist really hates black people. Sabaton doesn't look too pretty either, being pro-Isreal and singing songs on nazi commanders and templars and shit. Don't let that stop you from being a metalhead though. There's good-hearted bands and good-hearted metalheads out there.
Thanks.
No I'd never base an entire genre on one section. That's not a problem. I appreciate the reply.
Nah, great art transcends the binary of revolutionary or reactionary
One could argue that great art has to have some level of creativity. And thus by deffinition cant be reactionary.
Even if a reactionary makes good art. The art has to have creativity in that sense the art is no longer reactionary.
Dali is by all accounts a pretty good artist and he was reactionary as they come
Yes. But the art is very creative. He clearly has a positive vission not in the sense that its moraly good but in the sense that it adds something. So the art its not reactionary even if the artist is. Same with the campbellians. Reactionary art is that wothout a positive vission. Like hotel paintings. Or a lot of current literature. Its empty. And it correlates a lot with the left column
feels weird to define reactionary not as being counter revolutionary but as being uncreative.
Well we are talking about art. And while art is certaily influenced by material condition. I think art exsists in a realm of abstract ideas. And its reactionry character should relate to that realm.
And as long as art is comunicating something new. Its moving the structure in the ideal realm of art forward. Its doing the work of art in exploring posivilities and expressing something. And its real world impact is not antirrevolutionary unless it promotes anti revolutionary ideas but if thats the case then those are not creative.
Yet i see a lot of "art" that is reactionary in the sense that has no positive ideas. And that seems to be way more prevalent now. And even even if we judge it from its real world material impact this is clearly more anti revolutionary than art made by a reactionary that at least bring some new perspectives. That is why i made the distinction.
Dali was pretty reactionary but there was much worse
Dali was outspoken in his love of Hitler. You don't really get more reactionary than being a fan of Hitler
It was like some weird erotic fixation, wasn't it?