Posts by DCBCauchi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Alex Coleman,
In the same way that AQ don’t represent Muslims. Which is a point the counterjihad movement explicitly reject. And, when you tell them to keep their thoughtcrimes to themselves, one transmogrifies into a cultural marxist.
I respect their freedom of speech, but it’s not free in the sense of being without cost.
If being a hypocrite obviated your right to free speech, no-one would be able to think anything at all.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
anyone to hazard a guess when we can start suppressing hate speech again?
Germany, for instance, has some of the strongest laws on such speech in the democratic world. It doesn’t stop the neo-Nazis.
No it doesn't. And it's a silly way to try.
And a child-murdering maniac quoting right-wing blogs doesn't reflect or represent those blogs, in the same way that the Weathermen didn't represent the larger SDS movement they explicitly came from.
In a free, open, and tolerant society, people have the right to hold and express whatever beliefs they like. There is no fucking test. That is what being a free, open, and tolerant society means.
Keep your thought crimes to yourself.
-
Israeli spies, US trade negotiators, the SAS, white supremacist gangs, Maori and eco radicals, and a big fuck off earthquake sending all their plots awry. I sincerely hope half a dozen hacks are starting out on their potboilers at this very moment.
-
Hard News: Rough times in the trade, in reply to Sacha,
Try getting public funding for anything else without some strings attached. I agree they should be strings overseen by people with enough expertise, and only related to the (minimal) public interest components of the work.
Yes, of course all public funding comes with quite proper conditions attached.
However, at least publicly funded NGOs get treated like they are – a health clinic has to treat patients. Art, on the other hand, gets treated not as art but as some kind of glorified tourism advertisement or branding exercise.
For example, there are these light boxes on Courtenay Place, and the council put out a call for applications from artists for works on the theme of rugby and patriotism etc for during the world cup. (Look what we have to put up with!)
I have some things to say on nationalism and patriotic pride, but I didn't bother applying.
-
Hard News: Rough times in the trade, in reply to giovanni tiso,
I just think society has a stake in how the commerce of art works.
As far as I'm concerned, society can fuck right off.
-
Hard News: Rough times in the trade, in reply to BenWilson,
Looks like Gio took you out of context. You said you could look after yourselves, but you weren’t meaning financially, you surely meant that you don’t need a bureaucrat telling you how to do your art.
Oh right. Yes, I did mean that. Or, rather, not just a bureaucrat but anyone.
-
Hard News: Rough times in the trade, in reply to giovanni tiso,
However, we legislate things like copyright and we fund writers and artists because we have a stake in how these things play out. Which is why I think the debate needs to go beyond “leave the creative people alone, they’ll be all right”.
Who is the 'we' here?
Yes, the State funds some artistic activities. And quite right. However, that does not give anyone a stake in the work that results other than the artist(s) involved. You don't abrogate your artistic freedom and moral rights by accepting public funding.
-
Hard News: Rough times in the trade, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Ah, that must be why all those competitions for funding with Creative NZ never get any applicants, or why nobody took up the artists on the dole scheme, or why the NZSO sends back all those cheques. I had been wondering.
I'm sorry, but I completely fail to see your point here.
Are you saying that, because people apply for public funding, other people should then tell them what to do and how to do it?
-
Hard News: Rough times in the trade, in reply to recordari,
I would suggest a defining principle of modern media is impatience. I want it all, and I want it now.
We live in an age of instant completism. My partner's kid, in their 20s, watch tv and flicks completely differently than I do. They are so used to having the internet within reach that they look up every reference or person that grabs their fancy and quickly digest everything they can find, which in a lot of cases (such as music) is everything there is.
You play them a band they like, and next time you see them they know more about them than you do. It's wearying.
I'm a painter, and we totally fetishise form over content. A painting and its digital copy are quite separate things.
I've done t-shirts, though I just gave them to friends, and have strongly considered putting images on coffee cups before. And tea towels.
That said, I don't represent anyone except myself, but I think it fair to say that the last thing artists need or want is other people telling them what to do or how they should do it. We can look after ourselves.
-
Hard News: People Take Drugs, in reply to Bart Janssen,
in that delightfully high minded statement
you say that like it’s a bad thing
That is because it is. There is real meaning in the proverb 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.'
It's a pity that championing individual freedom has been co-opted by the right to mean 'ability to make a profit'. If people had any sense, it wouldn't just be the fringes opposing technocrats seeking to use taxes (and other means) to influence behaviour.
George Orwell put it well: 'The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.'