Artists and morality (that old chestnut again)

The Philosophy of Art & Aesthetics.

Moderator: e_dog

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » May 10th, 2005, 11:54 am

Trevor asked what is the relevance to a discussion of the nature terrorism to the discussion of Clancy novels. and yet Trevor states that "whole point of Clancy's stories, like much of his genre, is to entertain people by creating good guys triumphing over bad guys. His stories, though occasionally loosely based on occurances, have nothing to do with what happens in real life." well, it clearly makes sense to ask whether the "good guys" are really good. i take it that even a bad person can do a good act, such as to thwart the plot of another bad guy. likewise, it can be the case that party X is a terrorist, party Y is a terrorist, and party X defeats party Y and that event this is a good thing. that doesn't change the fact that party X is still a terrorist.

my criticism of "antiterrorism" as an ideology is not that the proponents of this concept believe they fight terror with terror. to the contrary, they believe they are, to use your phrase. "righteous" and are opposing the wicked. my point is that the very concept or term "antiterrorism" is an ideological propaganda tool. it should always be regarded suspicously, for the simple reason that terrorists always claim to fighting to bring justice or peace against those who are threatening or terrorising them. my propsal is to just drop the word "antiterrorism" not to change to whom it is applied. it is unnecessary since we can, if we want, describe the actions to prevent a a highjacking, say, as a police action, or describe a just war as a just war: there's no need to bring in the silly pseudo-word "anti-terrorist."

Trevor, your remarks say that the U.S. committed a grave act of terror in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but that the ascription to the U.S. of the label terrorist is somehow isolated to that narrowly defined event. apparently, five minutes before the bomb dropped, or before the order was given, or something, the U.S. was not a terrorist and that it became so then. an alternative view is that there was a terroristic core to the system of militarism and government that led to such an event that makes it terrorist well in advance. that is, the very fact that such a project could develop reveals the latent terror at the heart of the ostensibly democratic and liberal social order.


Trev:
The intitial labelling of "terrorists" was to describe a group of people who caused terror in society by targeting weak points, ie..civillian population, non military targets, etc. to instill a sense of terror within the general population thereby causing subsequent turmoil in government through the discontentment of the society in hopes of achieving their goal...which is to sieze power.
what you are calling the "intital labeling" is not historically accurate. it follows, rather, the statist propaganda machine according to which terror is exclusively the province of dangerous radicals and revolutionaries. however, terror applies first of all to reigns of terror in which a group already in power tries to subdue or purge its enemies or perceived threats to its power.

again, what is the relevance of this topic to the question of art and morality. well, it connects via the question of ideology. can and does certain forms of art create or reinforce political ideologies in the minds of its readers, viewers? in the case of abstract art, the answer seems to be clearly, no. it is only art that has a human content, some relation to history or myth and social meaning, that can function as such an ideology or influence to action.

Trevor
Posts: 176
Joined: September 8th, 2004, 9:34 am

Post by Trevor » May 10th, 2005, 4:15 pm

"well, it clearly makes sense to ask whether the "good guys" are really good."

In his stories yes, the good guys are really good. Very easy to tell them apart. In real life, no, America isn't always the beautiful and has bloody hands and its not so easy to tell good guys and bad guys from one another. But in fiction, who cares what you think of the real Amercia. He is giving you his ficticious America because it suits the needs of his story. Read it or don't read it based on what you think of his made up story. He is not re-writing history. Who cares that dragons don't actually exist when you read a fantasy novel? ....its all pretend.

"i take it that even a bad person can do a good act, such as to thwart the plot of another bad guy. likewise, it can be the case that party X is a terrorist, party Y is a terrorist, and party X defeats party Y and that event this is a good thing. that doesn't change the fact that party X is still a terrorist. "

And your point is?? Its silly to think that a Jack Ryan is complex enough to be an anti hero. He is easily defined as is the powers he works for inside a ficticious novel. He or similar ficticious characters stop the bad guys who are trying to rule the world...etc....and a ficticious world at that. Very simple stories.

"my point is that the very concept or term "antiterrorism" is an ideological propaganda tool."

And? Again what is your point? Sure the real America, along with other real countries use it falsely to justify questionable actions but what does that have to do with pretend? What does that have to do with an imagined America in a ficticious book where they are only doing justified ficticious things. Sure you could say it is American propaganda, but if you changed America to Zimbabwe, and made Jack Ryan black, you would just regard it as entertainment rather than a Zimbabwe political statement.

"it is unnecessary since we can, if we want, describe the actions to prevent a a highjacking, say, as a police action, or describe a just war as a just war: there's no need to bring in the silly pseudo-word "anti-terrorist."

Call it a tomato for all I care. Renaming something simply does not change what it is so I couldn't care less what you would like to call it especially in terms of fiction. Lets get rid of the word terrorist as well and call it horrorist... because we can, if we want, describe the actions of highjacking, say, as a horrorist action....Or perhaps get rid of terrorist but keep anti-terrorist and when describing terrorists we can just call them the: Anti-terroristically Challenged.

"apparently, five minutes before the bomb dropped, or before the order was given, or something, the U.S. was not a terrorist and that it became so then."

No, it was not at the moment they dropped the bomb. Of course in preparation of "performing one of the most cruel and perverse acts ever concieved by mankind.", they were terrorists plotting to do this because to devise such a plan with the intent to carry it out is pretty much a terroristic thing to do. But again, what the hell is your point? Did I have to go into detail about the plan and conception of Fat Boy in order to make a point? Hell, America, long before WW2 had participated in many terrorist acts...again, what's all this have to do with a ficticious portrayal of ficticious characters in a ficticious America? If Clancy had added that Jack Ryan had a magical talking pet mouse in his pocket, would you still be debating the importance of real life terrorists or muddled American policy in relation to his work or him being responsible for furthering terrorist violence?

"what you are calling the "intital labeling" is not historically accurate. it follows, rather, the statist propaganda machine according to which terror is exclusively the province of dangerous radicals and revolutionaries. however, terror applies first of all to reigns of terror in which a group already in power tries to subdue or purge its enemies or perceived threats to its power."

Yes fair enough, my initial labeling statement is not historically correct....though often a modern use, though not the exclusive modern definition...however it is usually the definition of a terrorist in a ficticious Clancy'eque novel.

"in the case of abstract art, the answer seems to be clearly, no. it is only art that has a human content, some relation to history or myth and social meaning, that can function as such an ideology or influence to action."

How so? If abstract art is open to interpretation can it not be said that it is open to interpretation as in relation to history, myth or to have social meaning, all of which in many different forms? Considering real life murderers have done things such as conversing with talking dogs and Jesus, is it not fair to say that seeing a red spot on a wall in an art gallery may be the inspiration for the insane to commit a murder? But again, it would be crazy to hold Dali even partially responsible if someone said a talking duck in one of his paintings told him to kill.

Post Reply

Return to “The Anti-Academy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest