Comment by mft_
2 days ago
It's not in vogue these days, but rather than forgiving, we can compartmentalise and rationalise.
Being a bad person in one domain doesn't mean that someone can't generate value in another.
2 days ago
It's not in vogue these days, but rather than forgiving, we can compartmentalise and rationalise.
Being a bad person in one domain doesn't mean that someone can't generate value in another.
The genius label we bestow on a select few is often a license to behave badly. I always enjoyed Richard’s music but never quite bought the stories told about him.
Why are you putting "value" above human decency? Maybe you shouldn't be considered to generate any "value" if you put misery on others, how can any "value" make up for the direct suffering?
There are plenty people just the same, with the same capabilities without the quality of being a tarpit of suck.
>Why are you putting "value" above human decency?
Because human decency is often overrated and hard usable value is often underrated.
If we removed the value (changes, inventions, artworks, products, etc) made by people which were lacking in "human decency" in this or that aspect, billions would be poorer, sicker, die sooner, and have much worse cultures.
>There are plenty people just the same, with the same capabilities without the quality of being a tarpit of suck.
Understanding is a great component of human decency too, as is not being a sanctimonious hollier-than-thou type. For example, not labelling someone who "wrote something mean in a forum" as "a tarpit of suck", as if that defines them totally, or as if the persons making such statements shit doesn't smell.
Plus "plenty people just the same, with the same capabilities", really? As if the output of an artist is interchangeable with that of another, so that we can just discard those that have done such grave offenses as "being rude on a forum" and just listen to another?
Is there really a distinction? Isn't the altruistic concept that we all have innate value also a statement of offering value, even by our mere existence?
I find it so odd that people overlook severe faults in those whose other qualities they rather love and greatly appreciate. It seems so unjust, yet it's universal.
I know I have made many mistakes in my life, especially as a dumb kid.
We can't all be on your level of moral perfection.
A lot of James' discography is predicated on making other people suffer. The album art is offputting, the track listings are usually cluttered and useless, his music videos are scary and confusing, random tracks are designed to torture you (eg. Ventolin), and half of his music is released under unrelated aliases.
If you're not familiar with Aphex Twin, it's hard to understand that this hatred does nothing to inhibit his success.
What? Just because an artist makes artworks that some people find challenging does not mean that they hate their audience or want to make them suffer.
Also, what you personally find offputting, other people may enjoy. For example, I don't find 'Ventolin' particularly challenging to listen to.
1 reply →
Just because art is challenging and unpredictable doesn’t mean it’s interned to make you suffer.
Is Giger’s art created to cause suffering? How about Beksiński’s paintings? The emotions they invoke are not happiness or joy, but neither are they purely dread or loathing.
Aesthetic pursuit isn’t solely (or even primarily) about the emotions it conjures in the consumer.
Remember: the customer is always right in matters of taste.
You guys are doing a lot of hand-wringing over what was likely just tongue-in-cheek trolling among people who considered each other friends. I could easily see creating a thinly veiled persona to do some annoyance of a close friend and call them an ass-licker in my early days. It’s a form of affection.