Posts made by surreality

@Tinuviel Sadly, a lot of those records are public. They're secret when you cast them in the little curtained booth, but once they're counted, welp...

Also, this is definitely an American thing and I'm not sure how it goes elsewhere: in most if not all of the country, voting records are public. As in, if you voted for that guy that was OK with segregation in the 1950s? The person who was pro-death penalty? The one that was against the EPA? Yeah, anybody can find that out. Even if all the options on the ballot at the time were that guy because no one had a different view that decade.

@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:

my original point was only that I think it's dishonest to try to divorce art from the person who created it; and I think attempting to do so is usually an admission of the problem they're trying to avoid, because if they didn't think it was a big deal, they wouldn't be deflecting.

Here's the thing. I think you're looking at this wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/nov/21/from-a-racist-square-to-rotting-beef-five-lesser-known-stories-about-modern-art

(CONTAINS PAINTED NAKED BITS.)

^ That is a good read on this subject.

All of the things described there are objectively bad fucking news in a wide variety of ways today, and some were problematic then, too.

Do I think "the artist’s misogyny, particularly his affair with 17-year-old Marie-Thérèse Walter, who became pregnant with his child in 1935" is more important to society and culture than Picasso's artwork? Without hesitation I say no, and again, I don't like his work at all, and have no qualms calling him a spectacular ass.

This is not deflection, or 'accepting that everything he creates is a self-portrait of his shittiest attitudes' and some of the other ways you've characterized it.

(Apologies if I'm slow on anything someone expects a reply about, I keep getting powerfloufed today by the snow weasel.)

I don't think, fwiw, that Kestrel or GreenFlashlight are suggesting the equivalent of 'comin' to take our guns!' re: any works of fiction/etc.

I know I heard a lot of talk like this at the art shows I did around the holidays. Not 'we should do this!' but about concerns that dumb shit they said in the 1950s -- things that were norms of the 1950s, and these are things they no longer think or believe today as they've changed with the times with evolving opinions like the rest of the world -- have kept them up nights re: acceptance at things as simple as fire hall craft shows. It's really not a joke.

I feel for them. There are shows I am very uncomfortable applying to -- many churches here run them cheap, and for the $25 for a table? Yeah, if I make $150 (which is fairly easy) I'm still ahead and frankly, I'm not too proud for that like my mother was when she was running things. Still, I'm a neopagan, I wear my chosen symbols like other people wear their Star of David or crucifix, etc. and I've had concerns for years about being asked to leave.

I know that 'you think wrong, so you're unwelcome' feeling well. It's not something I wish on more people, which is what's happening, and I'm seeing it happen up close.

It is not charming in the least.

@Pandora This. Absolutely this.

The best answer to 'this person was a horrible bigot and what they stood for sucks' is not to erase that person's creative works from existence, it's to create new work either in response or to demonstrate the values the person in question is lacking.

@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:

@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:

People are saying that about creators who came from very different times from our own, and it's very common. It is also culturally dangerous on several levels, not the least of which is removing 'this is an example of how the views of the time, which were damaging to people, were echoed in the creative works produced at that time, and you can better understand the hardships people faced by viewing/reading/etc. the work in question'.

I'm just going to be a stickler for this point. I think it's reductive to call Lovecraft's works products of their time. They were not.

I'm talking about the trend on the whole. It is a thing that is absolutely happening, broadly. The image Tinuviel posted is absolutely on point as to one of the reasons it is harmful.

Even at that time the average American had significantly better sensibilities than did Lovecraft. He was hateful far beyond the norm for his time.

No one is disputing any of this or saying anything but 'he was terrible'. No one disagrees with any of this. I haven't even seen any fans of his work in this discussion.

Were the times very different from our own? Hmm. I'm gonna turn on the news and get back to you on that.

@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:

Any non-white-male author of the time would have had a harder time than a white male author... duh. The same is true, while somewhat less so today. No one has any illusions about that.

(Already pre-emptively covered.)

I mean, if you want to question the validity of any white male's creative work from any time in history in which white men weren't more likely than anyone else to succeed -- which is the only place the initial thought exercise could be going -- it's time to burn all of the art ever created, and not make any more unless it's because we want kindling.

@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:

Here's a thought exercise: let's pretend for a moment that Lovecraft wasn't a racist, but instead, was black. Do you think he would have enjoyed the same success he continues to enjoy today? I doubt it.

This is not a worthwhile thought exercise, sorry. Any non-white-male author of the time would have had a harder time than a white male author... duh. The same is true, while somewhat less so today. No one has any illusions about that. (Also, pretty sure more people have actually read Maya Angelou than Lovecraft.)

His 'success' in the modern era isn't even his. It's the derivative works that continue and thrive, and the majority of his 'success' is that other people want to write in that world. He legitimized the fanfic, essentially, and once you view it in that way? Pretty sure there are more derivative works based on Harry Potter or Star Trek than Lovecraft.

This is another 'let's twist things backward with today's sensibilities', which is the very nonsense people are actively calling very dangerous and problematic.

No one would be saying, today, "Because he was black, we should not allow his work to be read/etc."

People are saying that about creators who came from very different times from our own, and it's very common. It is also culturally dangerous on several levels, not the least of which is removing 'this is an example of how the views of the time, which were damaging to people, were echoed in the creative works produced at that time, and you can better understand the hardships people faced by viewing/reading/etc. the work in question'.

This is happening. It is happening in our modern culture today. As an artist, as someone whose friends are primarily artists, I take major issue with it.

@nyctophiliac I am so sorry for your loss, and very happy to see the new twins!

@Ghost said in Well, this sums up why I RP:

And why do YOU guys RP?

I liked playing make-believe when I was a kid.

I still like playing make-believe as an adult.

I have a list of more intellectual reasons than that, but it really comes down to the above in the end.

Things I consider positives:

• helps me see perspectives other than my own; increases empathy
• is an exercise in problem-solving
• is a vacation from the real-world problems I have to solve, and sometimes the game generates ideas for this as a bonus
• is good exercise in cooperative creative efforts; I typically work entirely on my own and this can get stagnant from time to time
• people come up with some cool, nifty stuff sometimes, which is neat to see
• sometimes I come up with something cool or nifty, and if other people enjoy that, yay!
• no 'I have to make money off of this somehow' pressures at all (which is a common problem with any other creative thing I do, considering how my family gets; I have lost many creative hobbies to their pressures to monetize them over the years, at which point I stop doing that thing because it's no longer fun or relaxing)

@GreenFlashlight said in Well, this sums up why I RP:

I don't believe enjoying any artist's art is inherently a sign of support for the artist's worst values.

A lot of the issue with the general trend these days is that an increasing number of people do insist that this is the case, and that that art and those creations should be destroyed or excised from culture and society because of it.

You can probably see why many people deeply invested in the arts on the whole take major issue with that, even if they're 100% on board with treating all people like people.

It would not be the pre-dawn hours of morning without a proper snow weaseling in this house.

(Pics are crap 'cause work light is on and this is just from the old computer's built in camera, but whatever, it's still funny. My pre-coffee, just-rolled-out-of-bedhead ass is blurred because I am, deal.)

That's how the weasel do. Anyone wondering why the chair is like that, well, it's survived ten years of four cats now... and they all do this. Just not often so 'I'll walk over you to turn around, k?' as Magical Princess Murderflouf does.

@GreenFlashlight When talking about people from the past? Bluntly, it's sometimes necessary, particularly in light of the trend of damning absolutely everyone and their cousin Frank from 1700 for not having had the levels of social enlightenment we have today. There are reasons this behavior is completely ridiculous and they should be profoundly obvious.

It's important to recognize these things, and be aware of them. It is absurd to claim that no one accomplished anything of value before today (or even today) if they are not espousing the most socially enlightened view of the world and those inhabiting it as we know it today.

I am not interested enough in Lovecraft to know what his cat's name was, and no one reading his works should be obligated to know that before they decide if they like the writing or not. (I don't like it; that's all I needed to know.) This is not 'divorcing the artist from their work'.

This notion that someone should perform a modern sensibilities background check on any creator, regardless of when they came from, before even looking at the creation is utter nonsense -- and it's profoundly destructive nonsense. There's 'understanding the context', and it's important. It is not the end-all, be-all. It is not the only thing that exists. This 'if the creator's life didn't conform to modern sensibilities, their work should be disparaged and excised' mentality would burn the MET to the fucking ground, and as someone who has spent a shit-ton of time there over the course of my life? No.

ETA: This rant may have come from having to take art history every fucking time I transferred to a new college for more swiss army knife costume/art skills, which I'm super bitter and baffled about to this day. Still, dang. I may never ever ever want to see the dang Venus of Willendorf again, but jesus, this trend galls the shit out of me as someone who has had the foundational values of art in history drilled into her skull five bloody times. (More if you consider some places splitting it into multiple courses... )

...am I the only one watching Emergence? It is non-awful thus far. A bit fluff, but it's damned good to see a heroine who is not a cover model and not skinny and is competent as hell, and there's a lot more positives in that vein where that comes from. For that alone I'd give it all the thumbs up, but it's pretty neat. Not over the top sci-fi. Worth a binge if it ever turns up somewhere for such purposes; I was quite pleasantly surprised.

On Lovecraft: his views make me flinch, and his writing is purple enough I just can't even.

I think the most forward-thinking and inventive thing he did -- and I do see this specifically as a positive -- is that he seems to be the first or one of the first who opened up the world he created to allow others to write fiction or create other works within it. Plenty have without his specific gross baggage and intentions and 'dude totally should have been a MUer' thesaurus abuse, which is pretty cool. This was a better idea than anything in the actual world-building is, and I'm glad it laid a foundation for other shared worlds to follow along after -- especially ones that don't have all the garbage attached.

@Auspice That looks great so far, though. Lot of colors for that space (and close together, too, eeee).

Also, owl. I mean, how can you go wrong when you owl!

@mietze said in Well, this sums up why I RP:

I think a lot of people love doing horrible things to their PCs so that others will pay attention to them. Sometimes it's not entirely clear where the line of compelling/annoying is.
Like I think almost everyone but the person who generates it eventually grows tired of the PC that is constantly needing to be rescued from kidnappers/rapists/assassins every week. And a lot of people get tired of the being a total unrelenting jerk ic for Reasons You Should Unravel (but forget about reciprocal play)?
But when you are talking about stuff like trauma, ect, you do run into people's leeriness about whether you are a sane person to play or with or running into RL discomfort/distaste. And if you are not very attuned to reading the room you can get in real trouble real quick.

Every character I've ever made has built in traumas, emotional scars, etc. 90% of the time, they don't come up other than the way they shape their reactions to IC events, because they're not front and center on display at all times to seemingly or actually wholly define them. I consider this fairly realistic, in that... well, I have plenty of traumas and they certainly impact my reaction to things, but not everybody walking past me on the street is going to look at me and go 'there goes a survivor of <thing>!' as that's not the way it works.

The way some folks behave -- excessive over the top hand-wringing or an endless melodrama over the top setting as their default -- on a MU, this would be the reaction they get, and they'd expect everyone to Immediately and Vocally Notice and React.

Like many others on the forum, I've been through some shit. People on the forums over the years have heard enough of it to know about it, as it comes up from time to time when discussing certain subjects. The people I run into in the course of daily life are often wholly unaware.

Barring exceptional circumstances, people shouldn't be able to point at (generic) character-you and say, "That person was almost murdered once!" (or whatever your inner trauma) on first (or even second or third) meeting. If they can? (Generic) player-you're doing it wrong, and (generic) player-you should probably fucking stop.

@Kestrel Online Table Top. Roll20 and similar.

Re: antagonism/playing the bad guy/being cast as the bad guy by someone else/similar circumstances:

I'm up for this when I'm up for it, which is actually the vast majority of the time. How it develops -- though I very loudly obviously insist on it being discussed if it's going to become the bulk of/front and center in my RP face on the regular -- can vary somewhat, but it's entirely viable... when I'm up for it.

When I am not up for it, I am seriously not fucking having it.

Flawed/etc. I'm always fine with. Being a screwup is fine.

Having my character turned into something they're not -- something that I have no interest in playing, and that I am not portraying IC -- by others? Nope.

It's the ultimate 'no sell', and there's good reason to be irritated by it.

@Ganymede said in Trivia for Health:

@Kestrel

I feel all of that.

Season your food. Dammit.

^ This.

'Spicy' is not the only flavor out there. I am always delighted when I find things that are very seasoned but not spicy.

@Ghost said in Dead Celebrities 2020:

Schrodinger's Strain?

Prefer this to dead Strain! Absolutely!