Trailer for "The Fountain"

by **eroeoplier** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:07 am

"Societies that shackle art to ideology are always the most repressive" The debate on this thread seems to stem from a clash of temperaments - roughly "art" versus "politics," or maybe "intuition" versus "rigourousness," (or maybe "right" versus "left"). (I'm also reminded of Melanie Klein's good-breast/bad-breast, and Winnicott's good-object/bad-object, and Jung's object-and-its-shadow). For my own part, given the state of the world, I don't think this is the time or the place to skip past criticism of popular culture. We wouldn't be in the mess we're in if we had a culture which was already sufficiently self-aware, or sufficiently critical of itself. Criticise HMW all you can, but the general framework of his approach seems thoroughly sound to me - it seems to be precisely about pointing out the ways in which ideology is being alloyed with art. And the subtle propogandists certainly appear to have been winning the battle on the Western front. I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, but I personally can't be bothered getting tarted up and going to the cinema to see a movie - it feels like I'm dancing on people's graves. More-so every day. But then maybe that's just because I've got no-one to go to the movies with (sob, sniffle). I'll slink off to the video store to rent a few dvds every now and then (dunno when I'll start calling it a "dvd store"...), to see what I've been missing out on...but ultimately - you see those kids mesmerized by the TV screen on that other thread? - we're just adult versions of that aren't we? Kids sitting in front of a tricky box, while the adults get on with adult concerns. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=eroeoplier@rigorousintuition>eroeoplier</A> at: 7/25/06 8:10 pm

by **Dreams End** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:34 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>pointing out the ways in which ideology is being alloyed with art<hr></blockquote> If that's what he was doing we might have a good discussion. Hugh's theory is that specific title's and character names are chosen specifically to draw attention away from specific words and names in the real world. This is different from suggesting there is ideological content in movies. Of course there is. It's sort of like, as someone from the South of the U.S. I don't think I have an "accent" but if I go up north or to England, surely they detect it. All art operates in a background of shared ideology, and art that is not particularly "conscious" often reflects the worst of our shared ideology (inferiority of certain races, women, etc.) That's different from suggesting that some people are sitting down and designing these movies specifically to shape the cultural and ideological space. But this surely happens as well. I know it does. I wish I could do a better job of proving it, but it does. How MUCH it happens, as opposed to just a few movies or TV shows followed by copycats just looking for $$$ I don't know. But THAT is different from suggesting that the name Sutton in Conspiracy Theory was chosen to discredit Anthony Sutton. Or that the movie Paperclip, celebrating a community's commemoration of the Holocaust by collecting paperclips (to try to envision what 6 million looks like I think was the point) was specifically designed to deflect attention from Project Paperclip..which had been revealed years before. And it's this chain of loose associations which are trying our patience. We ask Hugh for one bit of proof that one of these assertions is true..one studio exec...one insider...one FOIA document SPECIFICALLY about "keyword hijacking" and he can't provide any. This is likely because they don't exist, as he has confused what "keyword hijacking" actually is...an obnoxious way of redirecting search engine traffic. So Hugh...do everyone a favor. Find one website, one government doc...anything in which the term "keyword hijacking" is used as you intend. If you can't, you should at least append your theories with "what I CALL" keyword hijacking, so that the statement doesn't claim you are referring to something that is known by that name by the bad guys. Also, this is a good place for this discussion, but some threads are not. People talk about parapolitics, the occult and the just plain weird on this board (think flying horses). That's okay, Hugh. people have a variety of interests. Plus, with parapolitics, when you go poking a stick in a nest, it's often amazing what comes crawling out.

by **sunny** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:47 am

FWIW, here are results 1 - 10 of about 549,000 <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Project+Paperclip&btnG=Google+Search" target="top">Project Paperclip.</a> Also Fwiw, I agree with HMW on the propagandistic aims of much of film and television, I just don't agree that all of it can be so categorized.

by **Moddey Screbbagh** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:01 pm

re sepka, responding to orz "how could anyone make a work of art in which no 'themes' can be detected?!!!" <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Jackson Pollock comes right to mind. Assuming that he wasn't simply in the business (as many suspect) of selling new clothes to the emperor, his techniques were suficiently uncontrolled so as to obscure any intentions or thoughts of the artist. I suppose one could make a case that that constitutes a sort of meta-theme of his entire ouvre, but I don't think it would be a very strong argument.<hr></blockquote> what a fortuitous choice of artist! just a few of the obvious themes one could go on and on about in his work: rejection of figurative art and its traditions, recovery of "primitive" techniques associated with sandpainters and other "native" artists, exploration of the subject/object division and emphasis on the participation of the artist and observer in the work, the "automatic" nature of the process so celebrated by yeats and later the surrealists. let us not forget the "manufactured" nature of pollock's celebrity: the publicity from clement greenberg, the life magazine article, and of course, the fact that he worked for the CIA.

by **nomo** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:31 pm

Doctor Doctor what is wrong with me This supermarket life is getting long What is the heart life of a colour TV What is the shelf life of a teenage queen Ooh western woman Ooh western girl News hound sniffs the air When Jessica Hahn goes down He latches on to that symbol Of detachment Attracted by the peeling away of feeling The celebrity of the abused shell the belle Ooh western woman Ooh western girl And the children of Melrose Strut their stuff Is absolute zero cold enough And out in the valley warm and clean The little ones sit by their TV screens No thoughts to think No tears to cry All sucked dry Down to the very last breath Bartender what is wrong with me Why I am so out of breath The captain said excuse me ma'am This species has amused itself to death Amused itself to death Amused itself to death We watched the tragedy unfold We did as we were told We bought and sold It was the greatest show on earth But then it was over We oohed and aahed We drove our racing cars We ate our last few jars of caviar And somewhere out there in the stars A keen-eyed look-out Spied a flickering light Our last hurrah And when they found our shadows Groups 'round the TV sets They ran down every lead They repeated every test They checked out all the data in their lists And then the alien anthropologists Admitted they were still perplexed But on eliminating every other reason For our sad demise They logged the only explanation left This species has amused itself to death No tears to cry No feelings left This species has amused itself to death Amused itself to death <img src="http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/B0000027I6.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V53799476_.jpg"/>

by **Sepka** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:39 pm

Moddey Screbbagh said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>what a fortuitous choice of artist! just a few of the obvious themes one could go on and on about in his work: rejection of figurative art and its traditions, recovery of "primitive" techniques associated with sandpainters and other "native" artists, exploration of the subject/object division and emphasis on the participation of the artist and observer in the work, the "automatic" nature of the process so celebrated by yeats and later the surrealists. let us not forget the "manufactured" nature of pollock's celebrity: the publicity from clement greenberg, the life magazine article, and of course, the fact that he worked for the CIA.<hr></blockquote> These aren't themes that can be derived by an observer from any particular work of Pollock's, though. These are what I was referring to as "meta-themes" earlier. They're thematic elements, but they surround the man's entire body of work. Without a knowledge of Pollock's life, and of the sociopolitics of art in the 20th century, these meta-themes aren't accessible to the viewer. Consider by contrast Picasso's "Guernica". Without knowing anything about the artist or the event it depicts, there are still themes of panic and violent motion that suggest themselves to the observer. All that's needed to access the theme is a knowledge of human facial expressions and body postures, which is something that should be available to the casual observer. You're entirely correct in that it's impossible to envision art without thematic elements. With no theme, all that's left is empty technique, a carrier wave without a message. The viewer can deduce how Pollock's paintings were made, but never why. I think that's one of the strongest arguments in favour of Pollock's work as a type of commentary on art rather than art per se. -Sepka the Space Weasel Editted for quote attribution (I really am getting lax) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sepka>Sepka</A> at: 7/25/06 4:48 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:57 pm

Dreams End wrote- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We ask Hugh for one bit of proof that one of these assertions is true..one studio exec...one insider...one FOIA document SPECIFICALLY about "keyword hijacking" and he can't provide any.<hr></blockquote> That's a bizarre demand. But I proved this anyway. Remember? 'The Paperclip Project/Project Paperclip' I showed you on 7/7/06 that 'The Paperclip Project' was first promoted by The Johnson Group which is a CIA cut-out doing PR work for the White House and Pentagon for 20 years now. <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=5063.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...5063.topic</a> (Award-winning film company hides US-Nazi connection) In looking for my recent post on this I noticed how many times ezboard stopped me from posting or editing with the infamous "html comments are not allowed" glitch. Something in my posts when I edit is creating this obstacle but my other point is that there is lots I've written that I haven't even been able to post here at RI! <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=3427.topic&start=121&stop=126">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1&stop=126</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Hugh Manatee Wins Registered Member Posts: 928 (7/18/06 2:38 am) Reply | Edit New Post Re: More keyword hijacking in movies, 'The Presidio.' HTML Comments are not allowed<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=5208.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...5208.topic</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Hugh Manatee Wins Registered Member Posts: 927 (7/18/06 2:14 am) Reply | Edit New Post Re: Orz fails. Here's how, Orz. See 'The Presidio,' 1988. HTML Comments are not allowed Edited by: Hugh Manatee Wins at: 7/18/06 2:35 am <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=5232.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...5232.topic</a> Hugh Manatee Wins Registered Member Posts: 929 (7/18/06 2:43 am) Reply | Edit New Post Presidio Day Care trials+'The Presidio' movie. Coincidence? HTML Comments are not allowed <hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 7/25/06 1:59 pm

by **Moddey Screbbagh** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:58 pm

i like your idea of metathemes, but think it would be problematic to consistently distinguish between these and non-meta, or plain old "themes" and i disagree that these "aren't themes that can be derived by an observer from any particular work of Pollock's..." one could pursue reactions to pollock's work along the lines of "reader-response" criticism, focussing on the "naive" viewer who knows nothing of the history of art and has not looked at any other paintings, but i don't think that would ultimately lead anywhere interesting. i would contend that any reasonably awake viewer, when confronted with a work by pollock, would be free to arrive at these ideas and many, many others. that's part of the point of leaving all traces of figuration behind: the observer is much more free to see something interesting in the work, and is precisely not limited by facial expressions and gestures, to use your example of guernica. also, all art is a commentary on other art. or rather, to the extent that it succeeds in commenting on other art, it is more or less interesting. your comment that pollock is a "type of commentary on art rather than art per se" would also seem to contradict your point earlier about it being free of metathemes (or themes)... unless i have totally misunderstood you. ps you may want to edit out "orz said" and replace it with "moddey." i wouldn't want orz's reputation to suffer by the attribution of my gibberish to him/her...

by **starroute** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:15 pm

Sepka, I think you're half right about Pollock, but not entirely. All art has an external context -- the art of the Renaissance, for example, depends heavily on our knowledge of the Biblical and classical myths it depicts. Without that, it's reduced to themeless representations of human emotion and conflict (and hot naked bodies.) Pollock's art reduces even further, to colored blobs on canvas, but the principle is the same. As I understand it (though it's been a while since I was reading art histories), the abstract expressionists of the mid-20th century came out of both the abstractionists and the surrealists of the teens and twenties. They were trying to come to grips with the two greatest philosophical conundrums of the period -- the absurdist universe of pure matter and energy (in which all human ideas and values are rendered irrelevant) and the Freudian/Jungian subconscious realm of half-glimpsed but unresolvable intimations of something you don't dare call higher reality because science assures you there's no such thing. My recollection is that Pollock's work was rooted in both the automatic writing of the 19th century spiritualists and Zen calligraphy -- but was also fundamentally self-undermining as a result of that absurdist presumption that higher meaning is an empty dream and the only true reality is existential chaos. It's that sort of thinking that turns artists into alcoholics and leads to their premature death. However, even if we grant that Pollock was doing what all real artists do -- representing what he took to be the ultimate truth about reality in the most authentic way he could imagine -- we're left with the question of why American art in general should have flown into that particular black hole at that particular moment. The original wave of abstraction, Dadaism, and semi-abstract surrealism (Klee, Miro) appeared in the years surrounding World War I and was infused with the despair and sense of meaninglessness of those years. But in the 30's, beset by the Great Depression, art became generally representational and overwhelmingly socially conscious. Even when it didn't carry an explicit political message, the realism of the 30's was heavily anecdotal and democratic in its subject matter. The revival of abstraction occurred right around the same time as the start of World War II. And a quick check of the Wikipedia entry on Pollack shows that his characteristic style emerged abruptly in 1947 -- yes, the same 1947 that brought us the CIA, the National Security State, and the beginning of McCarthyism. Those things are not coincidences. Abstract art -- like the nonsense lyrics of 50's rock 'n' roll -- is born in part out of the inability to speak of what is forbidden. It also suggests something I've been coming to suspect just recently -- that World War II, rather than representing the triumph of democracy, actually marked the onset of the conservative counterrevolution that has dominated the US for the last 60 years and the suppression of the genuinely alternative and revolutionary social ideas of the 30's. (No, I take that back. I hadn't been suspecting it recently. In fact, it had never crossed my mind until I saw that sentence coming out of my keyboard. But I *have* been accumulating clues that something was wrong with the triumph-of-democracy paradigm, and now they finally make sense.)

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>also, all art is a commentary on other art<hr></blockquote> Sure, what is left out counts, too. Musical composers know that the distance between the notes is a part of the form, too. In a world of 'sofa-size' paintings of bowls of fruit, Pollack's work says something about that by omission. Or it is necessarily inferred by the viewer who comes from that habituated perspective. Much propaganda is in the form of omission. The hardest truths are simply left out while truths that are non-threatening to the status quo are highlighted. So white propaganda is truthful but a control device nonetheless. And that is what so much media is, a million ways to not tell the truths that lead to peace and social justice.

by **starroute** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:22 pm

Hugh - is it possible you're trying to put blockquotes within blockquotes? That's gotten my posts trashed before I learned not to do it.

by **professorpan** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That's a bizarre demand. But I proved this anyway. Remember? 'The Paperclip Project/Project Paperclip' I showed you on 7/7/06 that 'The Paperclip Project' was first promoted by The Johnson Group which is a CIA cut-out doing PR work for the White House and Pentagon for 20 years now.<hr></blockquote> You proved nothing of the sort. All you've proved is that the Johnson Group has produced documentaries that portray the military in a positive light and have a conservative bent. "CIA cut-out" and "PR" are your interpretations -- not proof. The company has also done documentaries on children with AIDS, the American Indian Museum, and domestic violence, and produced material for Maya Angelou, Alan Alda, and Ricky Skaggs. A mixed bag of "feel good" material, none of it hard-hitting. The Johnson Group is typical of many content producers catering to middle-of-the-road audiences. It's pretty clear that they're cozy with presidents (Clinton through Bush), and their material skews Right. In your mind, that is evidence of CIA involvement, keyword hijacking, and general nefarousness. But your conclusions are assumptions and are not evidence-based. I'll second DE's request for proof -- verifiable, honest-to-goodness proof. But until you recognize the difference between proof and speculation/inference/guesswork, I'm not holding my breath.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> In your mind, that is evidence of CIA involvement, keyword hijacking, and general nefarousness. But your conclusions are assumptions and are not evidence-based.<hr></blockquote> You are suggesting that typical middle-of-the-road film companies work for the White House and Pentagon? No. That is YOUR assumption. Or, better yet, "do you have proof of that?" lol. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **professorpan** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:12 pm

You're stating that the Johnson Group is a "CIA cut-out." I'm asking you to back up your assertion with facts and evidence. Otherwise, you are making an assumption. It might be a well-educated assumption, and it might be arguable -- hell, it might even be likely. But you keep pushing your speculation as fact. It is not. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You are suggesting that typical middle-of-the-road film companies work for the White House and Pentagon?<hr></blockquote> And I used "middle of the road" to describe the audience of the documentaries. It's obvious JG is well-connected -- no one would deny that. Does being well-connected equal "CIA cut-out"? Maybe. Could be. Do you know for sure? Not if your "proof" is simply guilt-by-association. For someone so jacked-up about framing, it's funny to watch you repeatedly fail to comprehend why I and others weary of your over-the-top framing of speculation as absolute truth. If you said something like, "It's interesting that the Johnson Group has ties to the White House -- perhaps they are a CIA cut-out" you'd be framing your assumptions fairly and honestly -- and you wouldn't catch any flack. Instead, you communicate in a didactic, bombastic, my-way-or-the-highway "this is how it works" framework. All that does is alienate those of us who insist on living in a factual, evidence-based universe. It's tiresome and it isn't conducive to intelligent discussion. Please, think about this for a few minutes. You're a smart, creative, well-read person, but when you can't acknowledge your own potential fallibility and blindspots, you come across as a hardheaded know-it-all. It's all about communication and respect for your audience -- which is really all I'm asking for.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:00 am

I've since updated the stand alone thread on the Johnson Group's Paperclip film. Seems the 'journalist' named Peter Schroeder who was key to making this thing happen even more than the Johnson Group (even going so far as to procure an authentic Nazi railroad car to be flown into small town Tennessee) was an international Karl Rove-type who declares that he uses Machiavelli, Sun Tsu, and Clausewitz in his consulting. Check him out. <a href="http://www.washingtonian.com/people/03/paperclips.html">www.washingtonian.com/peo...clips.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The project might have died, too, were it not for Lena Gitter, a Washington Holocaust survivor, and her friends Peter Schroeder, 61, and Dagmar Schroeder-Hildebrand, 60, journalists who cover the White House for a German-language newspaper group. The Schroeders have lived in Washington for 23 years, mostly covering US politics. They often have written about the Holocaust. “We are the last generation who will know this,” Dagmar says. “We have a certain responsibility as Germans.” When the Schroeders moved to Washington in 1980, Dagmar met Lena Gitter through the local German club. Peter was so intrigued by her life that he wrote a book about her.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.polcon.de/en/peterschroeder.htm">www.polcon.de/en/peterschroeder.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Peter Schroeder, born in Germany in 1943 living in Siegburg, Nordrhein-Westfalen is married and has two children. Studies at the Christian Albrechts Universität in Kiel (Chemistry and Nutrition). After his studies he joined the adminsitration of the liberal Free Democratic Party (F.D.P) in Schleswig-Holstein. 1971- 1978 General secretary of the federal state organisation of the liberal Free Democratic Party (F.D.P.) in Schleswig Holstein 1978 - 1982 Head of "Department for communications and elections" in the headquarter of the party and at the same time head of "Department for training and programmes" in the Friedrich-Naumann-Foundation. 1982 - 1987 Director of the advertising agency for social marketing (BOSS). Since 1987 Director of the "Institute for communication researches" and lecturer for political sciences at the "Cologne School for Politics and economy" in Cologne. Other assignments since 1987 as freelance consultant: Planning for political strategies, consulting in political communications, training adult educators and managers. Consultation for parties, politicians, non-governmental-organisations, governments, local authorities in strategies for elections, conflict management and negotiations and projects of decentralisation, deregulation, new public management. Consultations in more than 60 countries in all parts of the world.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.polcon.de/en/strategy.htm">www.polcon.de/en/strategy.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Planning of strategies for policies, business and personal career. With our special strategy-planning instrument for political, business and interpersonal acitivities we are successful in implementing difficult policies as privatization, participation, creating new levels of administration, deregulation, decentralization, fighting corruption and fundamentalism as well as winning elections, stabilizing governments and making opposition more effective. The instrument is also effective in planning market-strategies for companies to enlarge the market share or to stabilize the market. Even for the preparation of career planning and interaction with other persons this flexible instrument, which has been influenced by different cultural areas and personalities (von Clausewitz, Macchiavelli, Kautilya, Sun Tzu), is suitable.<hr></blockquote>

Trailer for "The Fountain"

Re: HMW is right AND wrong

Re: HMW is right AND wrong

Re: HMW is right AND wrong

art without a theme

Amused to death

Re: art without a theme

Re: HMW is right AND right.

metathemes

Re: art without a theme

Re: metathemes

html comments are not allowed

Re: HMW is right AND right.

Re: HMW is right AND right.

Re: HMW is right AND right.

Re: HMW is right AND right.

Who is online