this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
3 points (100.0% liked)
El Chisme
432 readers
405 users here now
Place for posting about the dumb shit public figures say.
Rules:
Rule 1: The subject of a post must be a public person.
Rule 2: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 3: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 4: No sectarianism.
Rule 5: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 6: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 7: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 8: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you have examples of useful satire?
I am willing to debate this and reconsider my view but I never see anyone materially demonstrate its usefulness.
Blazing Saddles single handedly killed an entire (racist as fuck) film genre
can't believe we're forgetting shrek
Some... BODY!!!
Somebody once told me the world is gonna roll me I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed
She was looking kind of dumb with her finger and her thumb In the shape of an "L" on her forehead
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department
I don't think I even like the initial premise that it's art's job to be "materially useful"
That's fair. But art still falls into politically useful, politically useless, and politically harmful categories. I'm going to prefer the useful and I'm going to tell people to make more of the useful and less of the useless, while actively trying to prevent the harmful.
With that said. I'm not going to say something useless but entirely unrelated to politics should stop. Just that people making political art could do so in a different and more useful way.
L'art pour l'art arose out of 19th century France when the French bourgeoisie finally controlled the entirety of French society. Art being done for its own sake or being done as a form of self expression arose out of capitalist society. This was 100% not true in feudal society where artists weren't expected to even credit themselves. Various socialist art movements like socialist realism also eschews l'art pour l'art for its literal bourgeois origins.
The idea of some dirt-poor artist channeling their mental illness to produce sublime art is just some stereotype that arose out of capitalist society.
I thought this instrumental funk album I put on was neat, dismayed to learn it's actually bourgeois decadence.
So we're not allowed to do art for art's sake?
When I make paintings that nobody but me will see or write poems that nobody will read because I enjoy the process and creating art, I'm doing a liberalism? Lol
I think there are many ways to approach art, but "art for art's sake" shouldn't be seen as a model. If anything, it should be treated somewhat dismissively.
did "hey let's eat irish babies" do anything over there or is swift's only legacy being used as a school lesson? they skipped the part where they should've told us if it made a difference.
The name "Vanessa" comes from a poem of his, but I don't think that's too relevant to his satire.
i also forgot about a bunch of stuff from gulliver's travels, but byte-order conventions are probably not relevant either
Honestly have no idea, not one I'm an expert on. Perhaps? I wonder if the efficacy of this style of critique changes depending on society and media literacy rate. Probably? This would also be different historically I assume.