Tag urself. I'm MOCKS THE CONCEPT OF VALUES
https://twitter.com/oldbooksguy/status/1695775948569018481?t=b5YxtrzSkxNBP659ywCYyg&s=19
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 !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
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
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?