Forum menu
Problem is debate style has moved on, in the old days if you were asked a question you answered it, then someone realised this was completely unnecessary and being asked a question is just an opportunity to repeat the same spiel. Politicians started this, ignore the Q, just say the party line and everyone has copied it since.
+1 I agree it’s a problem.
A debate
noun: debate; plural noun: debates
a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.
An imperfect (or perfect?) example of this was the Christopher Biggins vs Carlton Reid debate hosted by Alan Titchmarsh. Opposing arguments were put forward. It ended with an audience vote. Can’t remember if they voted to cancel cyclists or to keep cyclists. I think keep. I’d post a link to the video clip but looks like it’s gone #suspicious #morecancelculture
*Edit - ah here it is:
#canyoucancelmylastcancelcultureclaim
#popularfacts
Quote: Me:
"debates these days are so much about rhetoric tricks, ignoring the question, and lying, and generally winning with your loud voice and strong simple bullshit."
Actually I fell into a trap here of thinking it's new, really it's no such thing. Cicero gets called the greatest orator and he would use literally any trick he could to win a debate. And his rival Hortensius was nicknamed the dancer because his footwork and body movement was considered his strongest tool in a debate. Debates have always been bullshit.
We can’t allow things to get to the point where nobody can open their mouth for fear of retribution or losing their job.
I could open my mouth and never have any fear of retribution or losing my job. Mainly become bigoted shit wouldn't come out of my mouth...
I could open my mouth and never have any fear of retribution or losing my job. Mainly become bigoted shit wouldn’t come out of my mouth…
Ah...
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/is-the-term-jungle-drums-racist/
Someone standing outside his shop and berating other people for buying stuff is cancel culture
Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with someone doing either of the above, but each case has to be judged on its’ own merits. And obviously, it all descends in to awful, tit-for-tat farce online where every minor offence is magnified
I would. I want to go about my business in a pleasant environment and not be hassled by fools with a megaphone spouting their views whether I want to hear them or not or agree with them or not.
it’s her opinions which are denying other peoples identity that have been a problem and had real consequences for some.
See here’s where I stop being able to follow the argument. I read what Rowling said, and I cannot find anything that ‘denies other people’s existence’. Could you point me to the bit that says this?
People disagreed with Rowling - that’s fine, I’m no fan of her myself. But why did they send thousands of hate messages to her? They were far, far worse than anything she said.
I've never heard of this concept before this thread and I'm not sure I'm any nearer but,
Surely the point of academic debate is being able to engage with those you fundamentally disagree with using facts and logic to defeat their arguments?
"We won you lost shut up and get on with it." Is this the sort of thing you're on about? Facts worked well there.
Easily, sorry I chose the wrong phrase. I was attempting to make a reference to acceptance of the transgender community and did so badly.
We can’t allow things to get to the point where nobody can open their mouth for fear of retribution or losing their job. That does not make for a good society. Views should definitely be challenged but people should not be persecuted.
Welcome to Scotland 2021.
Even events that are constituted around debate, e.g. the oxford union, result in soundbites and video clips of a guest speaker such as Farage making the rounds, and not the opposing argument delivered by the non-famous person.
Which brings me to another pet hate, edited footage that either side of an argument can use to further their own agenda. Imagine presenting a scientific paper where your study results were carefully curated and all the duff results filtered out? Context is king and this is why I hate these witch hunts often centred around a collection of patchy facts with only the context of how they are presented to go on.
“We won you lost shut up and get on with it.” Is this the sort of thing you’re on about? Facts worked well there.
No, because of exactly what I'm complaining about. It's all about who can shout louder and the sooner people (as a whole) understand this and demand proper answers the better.
Welcome to Scotland [s] 2021[/s] 2014.
FTFY, the rot set in long ago.
if you get invited to a party then the person remembers that time you shat in the laundry basket and uninvites you,
Are you still banging that drum?
The removal of Waterhouse's 'Sylas and the Nymphs' in the MAG was a case in point. All sorts of puritanical uninformed ordure was spouted against this painting whilst all sorts of crap (and offensive?) video art and posters were being celebrated (that happened to be by a black woman). It was a PR disaster for the gallery. I then found out that the Waterhouse painting was removed because it was the easiest one to get off the wall. I laughed, a lot.
uninformed ordure was spouted against this painting
I'll bite, Hylas (not Sylas) is a popular figure in 19thC art, as you can get boobies into your pictures and get away with it as it's Greek Myth, innit.
Imagine presenting a scientific paper where your study results were carefully curated and all the duff results filtered out?
unfortunately that happens far too often. To understand the position and results you now have to check who has funded the research. There have been many examples especially in pharmaceuticals where academics are funded to give the correct answer
Ah…
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/is-the-term-jungle-drums-racist//blockquote >
Sorry, not getting it. Are you saying that I made an ignorant comment about jungle drums and then lost my job? I didn't by the way, just to put things straight.
My point was, I wouldn't put bigoted crap out there in the public because I don't have bigoted crap opinions.
Yep Nick, boobies do need to be seen in context. The Pre-Raphs and 2nd wave, in my view, had many progressive attitudes towards women and inequality. I imagine the Sally Army and Mary Whitehouse would agree with much of what these protesters were objecting to.
The removal of Waterhouse’s ‘Sylas and the Nymphs’ in the MAG was a case in point. All sorts of puritanical uninformed ordure was spouted against this painting whilst all sorts of crap (and offensive?) video art and posters were being celebrated (that happened to be by a black woman). It was a PR disaster for the gallery. I then found out that the Waterhouse painting was removed because it was the easiest one to get off the wall. I laughed, a lot.
Interesting. Let’s put this to the test. Firstly, do you have a link to help verify your account of the story?
The link was talking to the workers at the gallery, some of whom were equally bemused and/or irritated. Sonya Boyce's work is still there in part (the gallery bought it) and some was on loan the Oldham gallery. She wrote in the Guardian to account for her actions. What exactly are you testing?
What exactly are you testing?
I’m testing for narrative trends/personal bias/context-insertion, conspiracy etc etc.
ie if your account is factual and it runs counter to the MAG statements, then the Gallery’s and Sonia Boyce’s accounts are called into question, and of course vice-versa.
Equally, challenging a person’s views needn’t be a case of shutting them down. Nobody ever had their mind changed by someone attacking them, in fact you are more likely to entrench their views.
Much much worse than that...
It creates a divisive society and actually pushes people into the internet ghetto's of extreme views.
Yep Nick, boobies do need to be seen in context
Well, if you view this particular painting in the "context" of all of Waterhouses' output, then Nymphs is probably "peak booby"
For criticism (as opposed to context) look at Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe and try to figure out what Manet was trying to point out about some of his contemporaries paintings...
I happened to be visiting the gallery and archives for 3.5 years studying an artist. Incidentally, Francis Derwent Wood's sculpture of a naked woman in the same room also had to go under the guise of Greek mythology but is a brilliant, vibrant and confident celebration of female independence.
Bias about Boyce? Creating endless posters of black stars of the stage, screen and sports field, do not, in my view, present good role models for the young. It's an invitation to drop out, 'I don't need to know about this if I'm going to be a model'. Why not teachers, doctors and lawyers? Videos that seem to suggest that football supporters are all drunk and sing racist songs blaring out in a room of Victorian art is a kind of cancel culture. As much as anything else, it's all a bit crude.
@kerley:
Sorry, not getting it. Are you saying that I made an ignorant comment about jungle drums and then lost my job? I didn’t by the way, just to put things straight.
I assumed (wrongly?) you were using the royal ‘I’ , ie your positing:
I (one) could open my (one’s) mouth and never have any fear of retribution or losing (one’s) job. Mainly become bigoted shit wouldn’t come out of (one’s) mouth…
In short, what I got from your above statement was ‘if one doesn’t spout bigoted shit then one’s job is safe’
The link I gave was an example of how things sometimes aren’t that simple.
Bias about Boyce?
Either way, about/from, etc. ie vice-versa. I’m trying to determine the veracity or otherwise of two seemingly conflicting accounts of what happened with the painting.
1. Is your account
2. Is the MAG account
Again:
ie if your account is factual and it runs counter to the MAG statements, then the Gallery’s and Sonia Boyce’s accounts are called into question, and of course vice-versa.
The Gallery account is:
https://manchesterartgallery.org/news/presenting-the-female-body-challenging-a-victorian-fantasy/
Following a fantastic response to its seven day absence – both at the gallery itself and on-line – Waterhouse’s masterpiece Hylas and the Nymphs returned to public display at Manchester Art Gallery over the weekend.
The painting – part of the gallery’s highly prized collection of Pre-Raphaelite works – was temporarily removed from display as part of a project the gallery is working on with the artist Sonia Boyce, in the build-up to a solo exhibition of her work at the gallery opening on 23 March 2018. Boyce’s work is all about bringing people together in different situations to see what happens. The painting’s short term removal from public view was the result of a ‘take-over’ of some of the gallery’s public spaces by a wide range of gallery users and artists on Friday January 26th.
The event was conceived by Boyce to bring different meanings and interpretations of paintings from the gallery’s collection into focus, and into life. The evening included a series of performances, all filmed by Boyce’s team, addressing issues of race, gender, and sexuality, culminating in the careful, temporary removal of the Waterhouse painting.
(my bold)
kerley
Sorry, not getting it. Are you saying that I made an ignorant comment about jungle drums and then lost my job? I didn’t by the way, just to put things straight.
My point was, I wouldn’t put bigoted crap out there in the public because I don’t have bigoted crap opinions.
That's your opinion... based on today.
However you don't know what will be the judgement in the future and if for example "jungle drums" or even something just taken out of context will RETROSPECTIVELY be put into a judgement box that might come back and haunt you in 10yrs.
I’ll bite, Hylas (not Sylas) is a popular figure in 19thC art, as you can get boobies into your pictures and get away with it as it’s Greek Myth, innit.
I was banned from Flickr at one point for a photo of the Capital Building in Rome. The picture was the whole building but if you zoom in far enough my god.. those statues have male genitals.
It was Man city council who asked for it to be returned to the wall after lots of complaints. The original idea was that Boyce's video would blare out in that gallery. A compromise was reached where headphones were used. They were then removed under the claim they were being damaged so the video quietly blared into the gallery. No such nonsense is found in the collections in Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle or Tate Britain.
That’s your opinion… based on today.
However you don’t know what will be the judgement in the future and if for example “jungle drums” or even something just taken out of context will RETROSPECTIVELY be put into a judgement box that might come back and haunt you in 10yrs.
Is all this just about a term that someone used 10 years ago or is it because of bigoted opinions that have been put out into the public via social media?
The funny thing is one of the only people that has been properly - and rightfully - "cancelled" is David Starkey thanks to his massive racist self own courtesy of arch bootlicker Darren Grimes.
How I laughed.
Yep, Manet makes a good point but they were not uniform in their attitudes. Some did objectify women (Rossetti in my view) others celebrated powerful and beautiful women (Holman-Hunt, Burne-Jones). This movement had a major impact on art (and politics) and to edit out is juvenile vandalism.
I cant see how removing Waterhouse from the MAG was a PR disaster, it got tons of media coverage and really opened up a discussion.
Art thrives from controversy, faux or otherwise. Think about the Turner Prize, it's whole purpose was to enrage the press and get art into the mainstream, thus increasing the interest and overall market for art and Culture. Art needs people like BillMC with their outrage and uses people like him to get more exposure and expand debate. Keep up the good work Bill.
As Faerie points out, many peoples views have always been cancelled. The hysteria shown when a painting is temporarily removed from a wall, (a temporary cancelling in effect) should give people like Bill a chance to reflect on how certain views have been continuously repressed.
The choice is yours Bill, reflect or rage, do both if you like but you can't deny you've been engaged.
Spawnofyorkshire,
That's a really good point about events like the Oxford Union debates. Traditionally events like this have been about the act of debating itself more than the subject under debate, en exercise in debating skills, sophistry in its purest form.
With the advent of Youtube and social media the content has become weaponised in a way it hadn't been previously. It's a problem, and one that the organisers of such events have not got their heads around yet. They might be clever people at Oxford (though our current Cabinet are doing their best to lay waste to that claim) but they can't see that they're part of the problem and that such debates have become both anachronistic and dangerous.
Some did objectify women (Rossetti in my view)
I don't see how you cannot see Waterhouse's paintings in any other light other than objectification if you hold that view of Rossetti TBH.
You don't encourage an interest in the arts by banning and removing, we need to increase accessibility both to the buildings and the art itself*. When people were debating in that gallery, I was astonished by how strident and yet uninformed some of these people were. I guess if all you're doing is looking for a label to attach and the world is very back and white, you don't have to think for very long.
There is a world of difference between the motivations and outcomes of Rossetti and Waterhouse but I never look at either for very long. That's not to say they should be removed. Once you start down the 'banning to stimulate discussion' you are inviting in censorious actions from religious and cultural conservatives as with the Satanic Verses. That offends me! Ban the philistines!
*hence my little Youtube on FM Brown
You don’t encourage an interest in the arts by banning and removing
Agreed, but the Waterhouse piece was banned, and it's removal was as a piece of art.
I guess if all you’re doing is looking for a label to attach
The Pre-Raphs and 2nd wave...These are your words, and if you don't mind me saying this, "Schools of art" are designed solely as a barrier by people in the Art World to discourage people to take an interest in art, as they perpetuate a myth of "importance and scholarship". Waterhouse is a Victorian painter who painted young women in various states of undress; so that uptight men (and it's always men) could look at their tits and call it art.
Once you start down the ‘banning to stimulate discussion’
I'd happily remove Waterhouse from most galleries TBH, as he's a bit shit and there's only space for so many "swooning young busty ladies, who just happen to have forgotten to get dressed this morning" on display everywhere... (OK, he's quite accomplished technically), but TBH, there's nothing of worth in his "art" It's just old...
I'd rather go to see the work of someone who was merely technically accomplished - Even if it's of busty ladies, Even if it's old - than the work of someone who thinks that removing a painting is 'art'.
I think we’ve reached event horizon on this topic. Opinion vs fact vs projection = hyperbolic motion?
My experience so far of politics can be summed up in Swift’s:
Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…
My experience so far of the internet would be a dumbed-down/shortened version of a misquote that has also been wrongly attributed. Algorithms will place this in top results. ie
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/winston_churchill_103564
Easily, that's cool, I have more respect for that, than people who pretend otherwise...
Sorry Bill but interest in the arts was encouraged by the Sonia Boyce piece, evidenced by the City Art Gallery getting more exposure than for any other recent show they've put on. You may not like it but the consequent increased exposure and engagement is just a fact. It engages both those who have an interest in the politics of representation in art and those that can't be arsed to go to an art gallery but will happily let us know what they think via the Daily Mail comments page. (Not accusing you of this though)
As for the Satanic Verses reference, nobody is calling for the death of Waterhouse, though I think you'll find that threats of violence were directed rhetorically towards the artist and the gallery staff. You've made a hyperbolic false equivalence and might want to take a look at that.
It's the same mistake that conservatives make when seeking to characterise those campaigning for social justice as a violent Marxist mob. The 'conservative' philosopher John Gray pointed out that Leninist Marxism justifies violence as a means to an end, where as for the likes of Antifa, violence is merely cathartic and performative.
Did you see the toppling of Coulston as the act of a violent dangerous mob, or a self conscious piece of performance Art? Would you have actually been scared for your safety had you accidentally found yourself amongst the proceedings whist out shopping? Perhaps you'd have felt safer if you were protected by upholders of truth and virtue like the football lads alliance?
TL:DR
In response to the OP’s question, this forum over recent years has been a prime example.
As far as we can tell, Waterhouse was all sorts of things, but he wasn't a Bristol slave trader. I don't watch football but if you want to get a wider (ie working class) audience then it's a splendid idea to portray them as a drunk racists. Take down Waterhouse and you really need to think about all those Greek statues with the big willies in the V and A, completely naked cherubs, damned pornography on the INSIDE of roman houses and that's before I start on that Bacon. Most days I am a violent Marxist mob.
Take down Waterhouse and you really need to think about all those Greek statues with the big willies
Well, Yes and No. I think in the west we really do need to re-adjust our view of what art is and what it's for. Those Greek and Roman remains have a huge influence over all of our lives still, at least in part due to a bunch of stuffy old men about 150 years ago who pretty much ranked the entire world by aligning "worth of culture" directly with what they consider outside or inside of either the Greek or Roman influence, from Art all the way to Writing.
Waterhouse painted the way he did directly as a response to that influence. I can't blame him (as a man) to want to paint what interested him - young women and their bodies - but he wasn't honest or brave enough to be a bit more Gustav Courbet* about the whole thing. Flabby soft porn is about the least offensive thing I can think to say about Waterhouse, and there are a hundred Victorian painters just like him. You could place any number of them up on a gallery wall, and the response of everyone looking at them would be similar. It's mostly "How come all these young women seem to have ice cream cones where their breasts should be..." followed by "How come a piece of see through silk seems to be all that they like to wear when all the men seemed to be fully clothed" and finally "How come, if he's interested in naked bodies do none of them seem to have public hair" And that's pretty much the Victorians all over...
That we still think they're relevant is a pretty sad indictment of the priorities of most of the art world.
* Look up Origin de la monde
There's a bit too much missing here. Consider the impact of Millais' 'Christ in the House of His Parents' as reflected by Dickens' condemnation. Holman Hunt depicts a feisty and proactive woman in 'The Hireling Shepherd'. Burne-Jones showed the grace and power of women in 'The Wheel of Fortune' (a much better picture in the D'Orsay). The Marxist politics of William Morris (and Madox Browne) and the evolving suffragist movement and De Morgan's 'The Worship of Mammon' and 'The Gilded Cage'. The Pre-Raphaelite influence on 'rational dress' which became a feminist protest around clothing and bicycling. You need to contextualise (all of) this stuff to fully grasp its motivations and impact.
Cancelling culture (and people) was popular with Stalin, Mao and Hitler, even Trotsky wrote a favourable review of the antisemite fascist LF Celine's 'Le Mort a Credit', he didn't call for it to be cancelled.
BillMC, am I correct in my interpretation of your claims, ie:
1. Waterhouse’s ‘Hylas and the Nymphs’ wasn’t a painting that was carefully/specifically chosen as part of the performance/event, it was chosen because it was physically easier to lift?
2. They (MAG) weren’t planning to return it to the wall (at least anytime soon)?
3. It was only re-displayed because of the subsequent public outcry prompting Manchester City Council to ‘make’ (curator) Clare Gannaway put it back on the wall?
I ask because all the above seem to be at odds with what I can verify online from any sources. This is quite a serious business as it casts huge doubt on the veracity and intellectual honesty of all the staff and artists involved.
Here are Boyce’s afterthoughts at the time:
Though the neatest somethingion I can offhand is from a different interview where she says:
The decision to take down Hylas and the Nymphs emerged from the discussions. “It wasn’t unilateral,” Boyce says. “There was a lot of ambivalence, but the consensus was that as one of the acts that would take place on the night of the takeover, this painting should come down.” She adds: “My role is to say: ‘If that’s what you want to do, let’s make that happen.’” The work was taken down and visitors were invited to write their comments where the painting had hung.
The takeover programme had never attracted much attention in the press, and so there was “no anticipation that this was going to have such far-reaching impact, or even be taken to the media”, Boyce says. But the artist Michael Browne, famous for his paintings of Manchester United footballers, saw the event, and posted on Twitter that it culminated in “the permanent removal of Pre-Raphaelite painting Hylas and the Nymphs, because the female staff view it as negative, bad taste, out of date. Is artists [sic] freedom in danger?”
This, says Boyce, “is how things in some ways unravelled and spiralled”.
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/interview/sonia-boyce-hylas-and-the-nymphs
It wasn't the first one chosen. I've no idea what their long term intentions were apart perhaps from decolonising the room (that had been flagged up in the gallery).
By far the most thorough independent research/analysis I could find on the event is this source. (postgrad research on the planned event and response to event)
It does seem to partially address the MCC claim/misunderstanding linking it to a BBC Report? Bill may be able to verify further?
One actor that is ‘silent’ from this online space and narrative is the Manchester City Council (MCC), the local government entity that ‘sets the budget for the Art Galleries and is involved in major decisions about the city’s galleries’.22 It can be assumed, then, that MCC is a very inuential actor in their relationship to the Gallery and one that plays an operational role in the Gallery’s brand network. MCC, however, is not active in the Nymphgate conversation and so their inactivity may be construed as absence. Alternatively, MCC appears in users’ demands to dismiss Gannaway and the Gallery’s leadership, as well as to reconsider their allotment of public funds. More importantly, MCC is brought into the conversation in a BBC report stating that they ‘announced that the painting would return to the wall’,23 leading users to believe that the Gallery was mandated to reinstate the painting (Figure 13).
The conclusion:
7. Discussion and ConclusionThe takeover at the Manchester Art Gallery was supposed to be a business-as-usual event, but then the proverbial you-know-what hit the fan giving way for an online community to take shape with a narrative that effectively left the Gallery out of the picture. In this article, I have explored how the Nymphgate community and conversation were inuenced by a series of human and non-human actors, as well as by the technological affordances of the platform. I have illustrated how, although the Nymphgate network was instigated by the Gallery, the narrative created by the community was shaped in the continuous performances of other actors. In other words, although the Gallery set out to organize a community around their takeover and to create a discourse stemming from this event, they effectively ‘deleted’ (or ‘silenced’) themselves from the conversation.
Which leads me to ask. Exactly who is the ‘censor’ in this? Were Gannaway and artists ‘testing the ground’ for some mass authoritarian Nazi Feminist culling of naked pubescent white-boobs to replace them with old black ladyboobs? Or was it what they claimed it was, at face value. And the real censors in the whole debate are the ‘PC CROWD GONE TOO FAR’, er, CROWD’ - who effectively silence ****ing everything by framing every contemporary art event as ‘literally Black Gay Hitler with a vagina’?