Dubstepforum.com

this http://joshhall.net/post/81578386910/fa ... -hands-and
or the whole drama about livity appropriating maori culture or w/e
could probably dig up a bunch more but cba atm

imo it has no place in art as it just leads to censorship (either from the outside, either self-censorship). what do you think?

Had some long discussion with one of the Young Echo guys, Sam, can't remember who, he thoroughly agreed with the piece.

I didn't.

Can't be arsed to do it again, but it's interesting.

ironic imo
you could argue that young echo appropriate black culture themselves

I didn't bother going down that route but it did cross my mind.

I also noted he was very quick to jump on noise stuff but when it was closer to home (Shackleton, 'tribal dubstep' etc) that hadn't occurred to him.

Muslimgauze & Vatican Shadow are obvious points to consider too.

it usually boils down to:
i don't like/care for x thing = racist
i like y thing = it's just influences

^yep
That text is straight cringe, same as the livity maori thing.

i find cultural appropriation as a concept a bit strange, i understand how wearing a tribal headdress could be seen as stereotyping and offensive but when people use it to define more general fashion/music/dance trends i get a bit confused, it feels like people trying to create boundaries between White Culture and Black Culture which can't be crossed (among other examples of course), i feel cultural assimilation is important to keeping things vibrant

even to use dubstep as an example: you have a majority white crowd 'skanking' to 'sound systems' with mcs 'toasting' on top so arguably the whole thing could be called appropriation or an example of cultures mixing in a way which brings people together


and cmon does pev look like the face of colonialist oppression..

plus probably the feeling that pev want to express with his music is close to the maori artist that did the engravings hundreds of years ago, just different ways.

and that Buchenwald is just so stupid, what leads to think to the author that he is doing an apology to the concentration camp instead of the opposite?

If you're against cultural appropriation, stay the fuck out of art and become an accountant.

link to livity maori kerfullfle pls

i dont like aboriginal art being coopted for things.
recently had a freidn complain and get some ridiculous 'aboringainl themed' boiler room flyer artwork taken down
in light of how australian aboriginals are treated here its not really on imo

that said i dont think there is really a place for political correctness in music art. just some things hit closer.

http://www.nerdyframes.org/boycott-livi ... ri-motifs/
http://www.nerdyframes.org/when-techno- ... ure-wrong/
http://www.residentadvisor.net/news.aspx?id=21645

it was posted on here and some of the nz ninjas were defending it
but why on earth would a maori dude care about what artwork is an underground techno producer pulling in the other extreme of the planet ffs

iirc it brings bad luck/mana when their symbols are desecrated in public like that. but was the artwork actual maori or just sorta similar? can't remember. if it was an actual maori symbol, the maori can take legal action via religious minorities owning copyright over their symbols. if it was just similar, fair game.

the thing that bothers me is that noone makes a big deal out of it if it's white christian culture. how many times have you heard christian churches threatening to sue because someone "desecrated" an icon on album artwork or whatever?

as much as i wanted to hate that 'nerdyframes' blog it had some sense in it
im not goign to boycott livity ffs lol too far but i dont find it to be a great taste, intentiojal or not.

might make some abo-digital art for my next 12" hmm...

This article is massively incorrect in a number of parts factually.

It also ignores William Bennett's own words on the subject.

It mentions Tony Wakeford being involved with the national front but then doesn't mention him later describing it as the biggest mistake of his life and he's now married to a Jewish immigrant.

And finally I'm not sure how Regis playing a NON track makes him facist? Firstly While Boyd is a dick and I don't agree with a lot of what he says he's at least not racist as far as I can tell which this article implies. His social Darwinism shit is based on mental and physical superiority not racial traits. Plus the dude likes to wind people up anyway. Secondly how does playing an instrumental piece of music in a mix mean you automatically agree with an artist's views? If I played a Crass track, a Non track and a Sun Ra track in a mix am I an afrofuturist fascist anarchist?

It's a terrible article trying to grab attention whilst pushing it's own agenda regardless of the facts or taking any reasonable approach to the subject.

All kind of ties into the debate in Semiotics at large (under which pretty much all art & criticism, among other tingz, can be lumped) which asks: does art exist on its own terms once the creator is done with it - ie does it have a "life" of its own and possibility for meaning above and beyond the intent of the creator, or does all inherent meaning begin and end in the minds of the creator and/or audience? Author, audience, and artifact; which are critical and which is secondary in terms of establishing meaning? What is the baseline of our creative valuations?

چیزی است که همه چیز درست است مجاز است

the author (and intention obvs), on one hand, can be crucial for understanding and evaluating the artifact; but then again what do you do with an anonymous piece, when author and intention are not necessarily known?
the audience can give context to a piece imo, but it's necesarilly one the author had in mind

ultraspatial wrote:the author (and intention obvs), on one hand, can be crucial for understanding and evaluating the artifact; but then again what do you do with an anonymous piece, when author and intention are not necessarily known?
the audience can give context to a piece imo, but it's necesarilly one the author had in mind

And it's this last point - audiences giving works new meanings completely removed from any authorial intent, which has happened repeatedly throughout history - that really drives home the idea that maybe these things do live in a sort of logosphere that we're tapping into and that certain pieces of communication are not tautologically complete things-unto-themselves but rather small windows into a much, much larger information continuum that may even exist independently of humanity.

lol fuck this article. authoritarian bullshit.