Culture Why & When?: A Question Essay Regarding virtue signaling and Artists Uncanny Habit of Supporting the Establishment While "Protesting" it

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Upon reminiscing the recent death of Queen Elizabeth II my mind immediately went to the death of former Princess Diana, after which my mind went to a Disney Parody Sculptor referencing her death. Said sculptor, was a centerpiece in an art exhibit called made in 2015 by a British Artist simply known as Banksy called Dismaland.

I'll admit that I did find many of the pieces to be funny in a black humor sense (Which I have read in a couple of articles, especially many of the scenes that seem to ring all the truer since covid hit. (There are various parts of the "park" that appear utterly delipidated and are inhabited by mannequins dressed in full emergency gear and of course (You guessed it) a mask. wow, either Banksy was a seer who simultaneously predicted both Covid and Disney's spiral into irrelevance, or people within Britain had some sort of information that many of us didn't. But here is something that bothers me. When looking through comments people sang praises of the exhibit talking about how it was "groundbreaking and eye-opening" and how it brought up discussions that no one talked about or wanted to talk about.

Here is my problem. In my experience, these "Controversial" topics have been discussed. Industrialization, environmental concerns, refugee crisis(es) income inequality, class wars, all of these things have been under constant debate for the better part of 60 years with the anti-capitalist being parroted by mainstream media AND academia for just as long if not longer. The art and often the pretension that goes with it often just feels like empty virtue signaling. Using Dismaland as an example, when the exhibit was over, the lumber was used to make a refugee camp? honestly, as much as I want to give praise for at least walking the walk, I can't help but wonder why the art exhibit was neccesary in the first place when the time used to make it and show it could have been better spent donating to and building refugee camps. It seems like empty virtue signaling and whether it's a tweet or a blog post it's something I see quite frequently among artist

I think my issues can be summed up by this quote by a man named Tony Carmichael in regards to Dismaland.

Watching this intrigues me as much as it infuriates me. Either it's meaning is wide open for interpretation, which I can't stand (how does looking at this weird shit make you feel?), or it's meaning is cliche (anti-capitalism or something?). Someone enlighten me. I seriously hope it has some deeper meaning than the two possibilities I just listed.

So I guess the question is...when did artists (especially liberal artists think they were such hot stuff and why exactly do they seem to spout the same anti-captalist rhetoric that every mainstream outlet and politician seems to be saying. Does no one find that odd or at least a little suspicious that the people giving you praise and exposure are the same people you are making a statement against or are working with the people you are speaking against? I'm always reminded that "Those who feed you control you."

Is there something I'm missing? If I am and someone can enlighten me, I will gladly change my profile pic to one of those black "I am an imbecile." balloons.

Here are a couple of videos of Dismaland in question:

Spoiler: Welcome to Dismaland! ENJOY!!!!

 

[Cherico]

For most of history Artists worked for patrons.

The patron would keep the artist in food, shelter and supplies and in return the artist would create art for their patrons. The idea of the artist as some rebel who does what ever the fuck they want? Thats an idea of modernity and even then artists who actually lived like that got to fully enjoy being a starving artist which isn't fun.

General rule of thumb for most artists in history is you work for a pateron, your allowed to mock your paterons enemies but there are very definant limits to going after the hand that feeds you, unless you have some one else lined up to take care of you. In many respects this is still true today.

 

[Captain X]

Honestly it reminds me of how artists in the Soviet Union were only limited to making certain kinds of art. What truly baffles me is why these morons think they're being brilliant, and it just comes off as fart-sniffing to me.

 

[Bear Ribs]

The entire art world has been heavily controlled and today it's mostly a vast money-laundering and tax-evasion scam. Art is traded between the super-wealthy as value tokens allowing them to avoid using taxable, and also prone-to-inflation, cash. This is the reason for the old saw that art always becomes valuable after the artist dies, once the artist is gone there's no chance of them suddenly producing lots more and thus deflating the wealthy's value tokens, so the wealthy begin putting value on it for their trading purposes only when the artist is deceased.

Meanwhile, on the opposite end the millions of dollars that theoretically change hands when art is bought, sold, and donated are rife with opportunities to launder dirty money and buying the art of the right person amounts to a massive donation of funds (see: People buying Hunter Biden's art) that is also useful for tax evasion.

Actual artists with talent and a desire to communicate their thoughts and express themselves tend to be of the starving variety while the ones that get patrons are those willing to toe the line and produce "art" usable as the appropriate tokens. That's why pretty much everybody not in on the scheme thinks modern art looks like complete garbage, it's not created to be seen, communicate, or have any social value for the poor.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

It's weird because much of the art at Dismaland is impressive on a technical front. The crashed Cinderella carriage for one but there is also a statue of Ariel that appears warped and fractured but the reflection in the water is perfectly aligned. There's also a sculptor of a woman getting swarmed by a flock of birds in a cute cheeky reference to Mary Poppins. That stuff impresses me. It just baffles me that people who are supposedly educating the "ignorant unenlightened masses" are acting like the statements being made are profound. aren't progressives supposed to be the ones that are awake?

 

[Simonbob]

aren't progressives supposed to be the ones that are awake?

Nope.

They are just a group that likes to think they are. Most of them are very small minded, indeed.


There was a guy I met a while ago, a Uni trained symphany composer. When he was young, he liked all sorts of classical music, but by the end of his Degree, his tastes were now for "Modern Classical."

Nobody who hasn't gone through that training likes that bizzare crap. He didn't even realise, until he started to look for work, just how few people like it.


A lot of modern art is like that. A small social bubble, who's tastes are completely reasonable in that circle, but everyone else hates. Then, some rich prick uses the horrible things to launder money.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

now when you say modern classical are you referring to crap like this?


this is the kind of stuff I remember being taught as "modern."

I hated kind of music even when I was in school.

you want to give me pop-classical or modern-classical give me something like this.

 

[Simonbob]

now when you say modern classical are you referring to crap like this?
John Cage - Sonata V (from Sonatas and Interludes) - Inara Ferreira, prepared piano - YouTube

Yup, or worse.

Note, it's not melodic, and it doesn't have a coherent rhythm? That's common in the so-called "Modern" Classical or Jazz.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Yup, or worse.

Note, it's not melodic, and it doesn't have a coherent rhythm? That's common in the so-called "Modern" Classical or Jazz.

hey at least Jazz
more often than not sounds pleasant to the ears:


Or this


prepared piano....does not.

 

[Simonbob]

hey at least Jazz
more often than not sounds pleasant to the ears:


Or this


prepared piano....does not.

That's old school Jazz.


I'll go looking for some Modern crap.


Huh. They're now calling it "Experimental".





Better than some of the crap I've run into. Still bad.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

That's old school Jazz.


I'll go looking for some Modern crap.


Huh. They're now calling it "Experimental".





Better than some of the crap I've run into. Still bad.

this honestly feels more like dubstep without the electronic noises. Not bad. Think I perfer harlem nights though.

here is a modern song I like though I might be more impressed by the video production than anything.



honestly kind of hard to call this stuff modern when it's well over a decade old.

 

[Simonbob]

this honestly feels more like dubstep without the electronic noises. Not bad. Think I perfer harlem nights though.

There's much, much worse, out there.

My mom took me to a "Modern Jazz" concert about 10 years ago, it was so terrible I got up and walked out. Nothing matched with anything else. The rhythm wasn't, the tune wasn't, and the beats broke any actual melody that struggled through.


And people clapped for that shit.

 

[S'task]

There's much, much worse, out there.

My mom took me to a "Modern Jazz" concert about 10 years ago, it was so terrible I got up and walked out. Nothing matched with anything else. The rhythm wasn't, the tune wasn't, and the beats broke any actual melody that struggled through.


And people clapped for that shit.

Jazz... without rhythm?

Art Blakely must be spinning in his grave.

 

[Simonbob]

Jazz... without rhythm?

Art Blakely must be spinning in his grave.

It was a little like 3 different songs being played on 3 different instruments, at the same time. Except they switched song, each at a different point, twice.


It was downright painful.

 

[Cherico]

Jazz... without rhythm?

Art Blakely must be spinning in his grave.

Keep in mind when you base a genres worth based on experiementation sooner or later you plumb the well of good experiement's. And then you end up going to bigger and bigger lengths to try something new until your deliberately making bad stuff just to be different.

Once you hit this point the genre either turns towards mastery of the subject embracing the best of the past and building upon it or self destructing.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

This is cool.

 

[Simonbob]

Going back to the reason for this Tread, I think I have an answer.

The thing about art, and artists, it it's all about emotion. It's about care, passion, and being moved. But...... It's not about reality. It's not about what is true. And the artists themselves almost never look all that deep, after all, the mainstream naritive is all about emotion too.

To find the truth, you have to be willing to stop emoting long enough to look, and be willing to think things through. And that, mostly, makes terrible art.


Artists can show us many things about human nature, but they themselves can only see so far. As such, they're almost all trapped within the narrative, and don't even want to step out.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Going back to the reason for this Tread, I think I have an answer.

The thing about art, and artists, it it's all about emotion. It's about care, passion, and being moved. But...... It's not about reality. It's not about what is true. And the artists themselves almost never look all that deep, after all, the mainstream naritive is all about emotion too.

To find the truth, you have to be willing to stop emoting long enough to look, and be willing to think things through. And that, mostly, makes terrible art.


Artists can show us many things about human nature, but they themselves can only see so far. As such, they're almost all trapped within the narrative and don't even want to step out.

Honestly, this is the part where I would say Idealism comes in where reality and passion sort of meet in the middle. But really it seems modern Art is not about that anymore. I mean this isn't like EPCOT
where it's trying to encourage people to strive for innovation and push the limits with what could be done with technology. If anything, it just sort of shames, it's audience and virtue signals without real solutions.

this may be an offbeat question but in the case of Dismaland, is it a British dark humor thing that I just can't really understand as a yank?

 

[Simonbob]

it just sort of shames, it's audience and virtue signals without real solutions.

Sure, but that, too, is all about emotion.

Also, there's a lot of shallow people out there, in the art world as much, or more, than anywhere else.


Huh. There was a thing about actors, where they lived for the masses love, because they couldn't get it from family or friends. This, in many ways, is the same thing.

Appeal to millions, because there's nobody close enough to actualy care.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Appeal to millions, because there's nobody close enough to actualy care.

I'd imagine either that or a serious question as to whether those close love you genuinely without a shadow of a doubt or merley out of social obligation.