Post by ...Post by KeefAn interest does not denote a belief in it or against it.
Yes, that's what we commonly would like to believe - based on
traditional ethical linguistic deduction, but oversimplifying the
process in such manners is not what I would view sufficient.
Except it's much more efficient and less meaningless.
If it
Post by ...really is "a fetish" then we cannot overlook the psychological
factors: how art is intertwined with the sexual urges and aesthetic
representation with the need of regressive behaviour of the creator as
the subject trying to overcome his position as a lesser member of the
society.
Why would anybody be interested in Egyption religion without believing
in it? We can only it place it in a social context - not in a merely
egoistic one.
Reducing it to social philosophy and psychology is rendering the entire
conversation into hypothetics, assumptions, and theories--you're getting
nowhere different than relying on egoistics. You won't get anywhere with it
despite a less static, multifaceted view of it all. Referring to psychology
and society only turns the possibilities into mere poetry, without any 'true'
understanding--which isn't a problem to anyone unafraid of the ignorance of the
human condition.
Basically, all we have is more speculation, which is all the 'neo-folk' genre
has inspired from the beginning, because no matter what, you're left with the
question of artistic motivation.
How does this relate to neofolk then? They are using the
Post by ...aggressive, "evil" connotations in their art - it's overtly cognitive
art in my opinion, and sacrifices form for content (the exact opposite
of elitist art by the way) and blatantly uses very negative imaginery
to draw attention to itself.
Yes, it's called 'shock tactics' and has been used for decades, perfected by
our industrial pioneers. Der Blutharsch, DIJ, et al., on the other hand, seem
to use a much more ironic approach considering how their music is rather serene
and beautiful without evoking much of the atrocities...so you have to wonder
just what they're aiming at. They could be, as I've said earlier, aiming to
shock simply through an image of sympathy: by separating the virtues from the
perversions.
And yes, they are playing with ideologies
Post by ...that are an insult to various groups of people for their own
advantage. However, I don't think the question here for myself is "is
it ethically wrong?" but "is it cheap art?". Some others may have
different views based on different facors, but I'm one of the more
nihilistic ones to whom art should be granted an immunity.
Agreed. Frankly, seeing their conservative/romantic bent, I don't think they
give a rat's ass about political correctness--it's not even on their map of
considerations.
Is it cheap art? Possibly, but as shock tactics, ambiguity, and incoherence are
the means, the discussion seems to make it fairly effective art.
Post by ...But the least they could do would be to learn how to write decent
songs, but that's an interely different subject.
Entirely different indeed.
--zs
"shit...everything shits until it dies."--Bukowski