Recently, the Twitter user Isaac Young sparked quite the controversy over a thread he did on the film Starship Troopers1. The thread in question tried to prove that Paul Verhoeven's directorial adaptation and parody of Robert Heinlein's original sci-fi work fails as a biting and sardonic critique. What ensued was a multiple-day Twitter spat where irony leftists and the E-right battled it out over the interpretation of a 90s film. Something seemingly nonsensical, but served to reveal several key issues underlying the current online culture war in relation to art and literature.
I ave no idea what media literacy is, even now: as far as I can tell, it's when leftists demand you accept their ideas about art, i.e. some Praise of Shadows-esque insistence that all art is "really" progressive and can only be interpreted according to the Current Year progressive standards. That this idea is stifling and contradicts the last fifty years of left-wing academia does not occur to the average wokie, nor does it bode well for my opinion of their sincerity. It seems that, just as they are all moral relativists until it comes to racism and certain naughty-no-no words on the internet, they only believe that art is organic and open to interpretation until people decide that some "fascist" imagery is cool, actually.
“The aesthetic truth of this work, one can argue, is more in line with the original God of Creation…” and you could have just stopped there.
We perceive aesthetic truths in line with traditional morality as being more good and true because they ARE, and we can see that even through the intentions of depraved subcreators and their intended message.
Death of the author was originally subversive and relativistic, but righties need to reclaim it. All truth is God’s truth, so even God hating artists are still speaking something true about God, even if it’s inadvertent and the truth they speak is in direct opposition to the lie they intend.
The more I read of postmodernism, the more I've come to this conclusion. Rightwingers need to stop being scared of postmodernism: it really is just an answer to stifling modernist autism, and in a way, is very liberating.
This is borderline incomprehensible, full of technical jargon, and I find myself unable to agree nor disagree as I am unable to identify what you are actually arguing here
I don't think you can make a artistic parody with embedding an homage to the source material. Because parody is parasitical on some other text or texts, the meaning of the parody is always in some sense dependent on the source materials. If the discussion wasn't about fascism, this would be obvious. Such as it would be if we were discussing the relationship between the 'Airplane!' parody of the 'Airport' movie series.
It is not possible to create a parody or satire that can not also be taken as advocacy. Jonathan Swift had it easy.
Feels similar to the Keith Haring debacle as theyre both these brief online right-left flashpoints that on some level boil down to the role of text in art. The left wing analysis is textual-biographical, like how they think about identity issues elsewhere. The right thinks in more directly aesthetic terms. Its like the Hanania idea “Liberals read, conservatives watch tv” - maybe watching tv (or the contemporary equivalent) is better after all.
Could use some proof reading at the end, but good poast good sir
I ave no idea what media literacy is, even now: as far as I can tell, it's when leftists demand you accept their ideas about art, i.e. some Praise of Shadows-esque insistence that all art is "really" progressive and can only be interpreted according to the Current Year progressive standards. That this idea is stifling and contradicts the last fifty years of left-wing academia does not occur to the average wokie, nor does it bode well for my opinion of their sincerity. It seems that, just as they are all moral relativists until it comes to racism and certain naughty-no-no words on the internet, they only believe that art is organic and open to interpretation until people decide that some "fascist" imagery is cool, actually.
“The aesthetic truth of this work, one can argue, is more in line with the original God of Creation…” and you could have just stopped there.
We perceive aesthetic truths in line with traditional morality as being more good and true because they ARE, and we can see that even through the intentions of depraved subcreators and their intended message.
Death of the author was originally subversive and relativistic, but righties need to reclaim it. All truth is God’s truth, so even God hating artists are still speaking something true about God, even if it’s inadvertent and the truth they speak is in direct opposition to the lie they intend.
The more I read of postmodernism, the more I've come to this conclusion. Rightwingers need to stop being scared of postmodernism: it really is just an answer to stifling modernist autism, and in a way, is very liberating.
Trash 90s movie (I’ve read the book and also played the Avalon Hill game) but incredibly relevant now. KNOW! YOUR! ENEMY!
Casual militaristic fascism is the order of the day from our overlords and Rico couldn’t be happier.
This is borderline incomprehensible, full of technical jargon, and I find myself unable to agree nor disagree as I am unable to identify what you are actually arguing here
I don't think you can make a artistic parody with embedding an homage to the source material. Because parody is parasitical on some other text or texts, the meaning of the parody is always in some sense dependent on the source materials. If the discussion wasn't about fascism, this would be obvious. Such as it would be if we were discussing the relationship between the 'Airplane!' parody of the 'Airport' movie series.
It is not possible to create a parody or satire that can not also be taken as advocacy. Jonathan Swift had it easy.
Great read
Feels similar to the Keith Haring debacle as theyre both these brief online right-left flashpoints that on some level boil down to the role of text in art. The left wing analysis is textual-biographical, like how they think about identity issues elsewhere. The right thinks in more directly aesthetic terms. Its like the Hanania idea “Liberals read, conservatives watch tv” - maybe watching tv (or the contemporary equivalent) is better after all.
The Leftist analysis is what they are told a work means, the Rightist analysis is what they feel the work means.