|
Ruphus -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 18 2012 10:15:17)
|
It is alway a pleasure discussing with you guys. :O)
-
The items mentioned are all part of incongruent methodics that support and maintain economical dissimilarity and injust.
The background was already economical in cave men times, when single individuals returning from the frightening pitch-dark night of thunderstrom might have taken advantage of their heroic appearance, weaving a story of how they traded exemption for the tribe by negotiating with the mighty orgess that was throwing those thunderbolts and squalls.
Embraced by gullible mates they will have progressively expanded the myth, establishing their right to stay at home for to procede rituals to allegedly keep orgesses favourable and to ask for protection of those going out for hunting and collecting ressource.
That way they enabled themselves to steer away from daily hazzles and the considerable risk of being injured or killed on excursion; staying at the cave chilling, eating others produce and beguiling female consorts of the ones en route.
Later, on settling and first steady camps they would expand their exploitation and refine the mythology which meanwhile included them as legates of the supernatural. And when the first kingdoms came into place religions were founded, tailored to threatening potential rivals and insurgents with agony if they ever dared to question the god sent sovereign and the mythology altogether.
And in respect of the ancient thread of being left alone by their mistresses fierce moralistics were mended, so that however ugly and odious they would become, the female mates be forced staying at exclusive disposal.
This is basically what methodical mystics are about, notwithstanding some obligatory figleafs of ethical truisms added over time to disguise the recipe, producing the contradiction and cant typical to these works.
Over past centuries the methods of brainwash have been significantly refined further to balance the common rise of intellect, and beyound that.
With broad acceptance of clumsy works as a speciality of art presenting only a minor example of the honed instigation and manipulation.
For who is interested in how such can come about, here an old reference of mine:
quote:
http://web2.uwindsor.ca/flipside/vol3/mar00/00mr29b.htm quote:
Traveling first class all the way, the C.I.A. and its counterparts in other Western European nations sponsored art exhibitions, intellectual conferences, concerts and magazines to press their larger anti-Soviet agenda. Ms. Stonor Saunders provides ample evidence, for example, that the editors at Encounter and other agency-sponsored magazines were ordered not to publish articles directly critical of Washington's foreign policy. She also shows how the C.I.A. bankrolled some of the earliest exhibitions of Abstract Expressionist painting outside of the United States to counter the Socialist Realism being advanced by Moscow.
...
The cultural cold war began in postwar Europe, with the fraying of the wartime alliance between Washington and Moscow. Officials in the West believed they had to counter Soviet propaganda and undermine the wide sympathy for Communism in France and Italy.
An odd alliance was struck between the C.I.A. leaders, most of them wealthy Ivy League veterans of the wartime Office of Strategic Services and a corps of largely Jewish ex-Communists who had broken with Moscow to become virulently anti-Communist. Acting as intermediaries between the agency and the intellectual community were three colorful agents who included Vladimir Nabokov's much less talented cousin, Nicholas, a composer.
The C.I.A. recognized from the beginning that it could not openly sponsor artists and intellectuals in Europe because there was so much anti-American feeling there. Instead, it decided to woo intellectuals out of the Soviet orbit by secretly promoting a non-Communist left of democratic socialists disillusioned with Moscow.
Ms. Stonor Saunders describes how the C.I.A. cleverly skimmed hundreds of millions of dollars from the Marshall Plan to finance its activities, funneling the money through fake philanthropies it created or real ones like the Ford Foundation.
"We couldn't spend it all," Gilbert Greenway, a former C.I.A. agent, recalled. "There were no limits, and nobody had to account for it. It was amazing."
When some of the C.I.A.'s activities were exposed in the late 1960's, many artists and intellectuals claimed ignorance. But Ms. Stonor Saunders makes a strong case that several people, including the philosopher Isaiah Berlin and the poet Stephen Spender, who was co-editor of Encounter, knew about the C.I.A.'s role.
"She has made it very difficult now to deny that some of these things happened," said Norman Birnbaum, a professor at the Georgetown University Law School who was a university professor in Europe in the 1950's and early 1960's. "And she has placed a lot of people living and dead in embarrassing situations."
Still unresolved is what impact the campaign had and whether it was worth it. Some of the participants, like Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who was in the O.S.S. and knew about some of the C.I.A.'s cultural activities, argue that the agency's role was benign, even necessary. Compared with the coups the C.I.A. sponsored in Guatemala, Iran and elsewhere, he said, its support of the arts was some of its best work. "It enabled people to publish what they already believed," he added. "It didn't change anyone's course of action or thought."
But Diana Josselson, whose husband, Michael, ran the Congress for Cultural Freedom, told Ms. Stonor Saunders that there were real human costs among those around the world who innocently cooperated with the agency's front organizations only to be tarred with a C.I.A. affiliation when the truth came out. The author and other critics argue that by using government money covertly to promote such American ideals as democracy and freedom of expression, the agency ultimately stepped on its own message.
"Obviously it was an error, and a rather serious error, to allow intellectuals to be subsidized by the government," said Alan Brinkley, a history professor at Columbia University. "And when it was revealed, it did undermine their credibility seriously."
What is left out in this discription of the New York Times is how preferably and explicitely untalented people were selected who had never thought of artwork before, but were merely lucky to be familiar or related with corresponding CIA agents and from there came to a living as millionaires without qualification of any sort.
If you research you will find the info about it.
All their works are high price "art" today and substantially shaped what is being modern art since, which means actually anything, nothing, but merely corresponding people at hand to sell and generate brands. TOTALLY independendly of performance.
Many of thelike "artists" finally went to the utmost and provoked reveal of the granted selling principle and cynism with anything from greased bathtubs to holes in the ground, but the image industry reached indestructibility and went on inflating the conception of artistry to infinity.
Meanwhile the unskilled market fraction outstripped the classical works in pricing.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
