We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Shock Story: Politician Tells The Truth! Anyone who has had the misfortune to have seen many examples of Modern ‘Art’ recently can only concur with the British politician who described this year’s Turner Prize exhibits as “bullshit”.
Ok, not terribly polite, but a wonderfully lucid and accurate description of what is on display. Can we hope for similarly salty descriptions of the EU as a “crooked empire”, the British education system as a “Soviet disaster zone” from the UK’s political masters?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The obvious needs to be stated: this “bullshit” exists because of taxpayer’s money, funneled by politicians to the “art establishment”. In the absence of such funding the “art establishment” would be more dependent on the public for voluntary contributions, and less “out of touch”.
“Last year’s winner was Martin Creed who won with his creation of a bare room with a light that switches on and off.”
Bullshit, indeed. Hah! This art is obviously beyond the understanding of you philistines. I hope that one day you can rise up to the intellectual level to be able to really see the lights turn on and off. But as of yet, you’ve failed to reconceptualize your patriarchal worldview into an anti-aesthetic understanding of a neo-Marxian critique of “rationality” and “existence.”
By labeling the art as “bullshit,” the “culture minister” has tried to force his worldview on others, without realizing that he is just continuing the patriarchal tradition in which he was educated. His kind of oppressive “opinion” is fundamentally at odds with the new dialectic the artist is trying to create. By combining the conceptual elements of “text” and text, the artist has produced a powerful statement by avoiding judgment of any circumstances other than the conceptualization of his own art. Since the art is defined by the viewer, and the viewer is defined by experience, neither is really defined, so in a classical setting, the concepts of “viewer” and “art” are bound in a viscous circle, and hence have no meaning. This art has transcended “the viewer,” and in many ways become the viewer, thus solving the fundamental problem of art “what is the central motivating dialectic?” The answer: ” .”
Lucas:
Why don’t you submit your post above for the Turner prize ?
It might win. That would be really scary