agreed, it takes a lot of willpower imho to be able to resist such cult-like indoctrination at a young age.
2 Likes
This is exactly the goal. You bring attention to the “establishment” holding you down.
A lot of moderates think everything is rosey, until they see people getting beat down by the police for no reason.
Exposure won’t change everyone’s mind, but it will change way more minds than staying in the closet.
3 Likes
Then why are you labeling something as “anti-art” if there’s not a difference?
You’re misattributing where the lack of a difference is.
If it’s coming from a corporate interest, it’s anti-art. It doesn’t matter if the people carrying out that interest have a genuine desire to do so or are just indifferent.
And if it’s a mix of both?
2 Likes
Okay but what does that mean?
If a business contacts a graffiti artist and says they can use a blank wall as a canvas to draw whatever they want as long as it’s not offensive to the public, is that art or anti-art?
If someone commissions an artist online to do a character portrait and gives them the exact scenario they want but leaves the art style up to them, is that art or anti-art?
If the Vatican pays someone to paint the ceiling of their chapel, is that art or anti-art?
I was about to ask a similar question lol.
1 Like
I think a corporate interest is pretty clear. Someone commissioning an artist for a private transaction isn’t corporate. I don’t believe commissioning Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel could be considered corporate. I don’t think someone would seriously try to bring those up as examples unless they were being purposefully disingenuous.
The motivation matters. Corporate interest is based in metrics of growth, performance, engagement, revenue, etc. Art created in service of that is anti-art.
Might be a good reason for a business to commission a graffiti artist. Need more context.
But an artist who is commissioned is doing art for growth and revenue. Like, an artist needs to make a living and expand their brand, too.
Why? The Vatican is absolutely a business, even more so back then.
I think you’re getting hung up on some anti-corporate crusade, which is in this case misguided. I don’t like corporations either but if they accomplish something good in the interest of looking good, I don’t really see the sense in pushing back against that.
For the record, I’m sure that Blizzard has some interest in allowing LGBT stories in their games now. They are far, far behind the crowd in inclusive characters in stories - other MMOs have been doing it for decades.
But what I think happened is that the well-documented frat culture at Blizzard - which included open homophobia as well as misogyny - was previously preventing these stories from being allowed in the game. Now that the lawsuits have happened and they’ve made efforts to clean up their act, it’s not that they’re going to their writers and saying “I need ten LGBT storylines, stat!”, but rather “Remember those LGBT characters you’ve been pitching for years? Well go to town.”
1 Like
You dont make threads… but you MAKE threads. 
3 Likes
True, and I do these things in my personal life.
But I’m not doing them for a board of directors I don’t know, share holders I’ve never met, and investors who I’m not being commissioned by directly. I’m not saying any artist who profits from their art is anti-art, I’m saying artists who do it for these specific corporate entities are.
I don’t agree. There’s being good, and there’s appearing good, and they are not the same.
I’m also not conflating that all business dealings are corporate in nature, either. If you’ve got a take on what makes the Vatican commission of Michaelangelo corporate in nature I’d be interested in hearing it, but I suspect it’s a hard sell.
How dare you be positive and supportive on the GD forums! This needs more AGGRESSION!
2 Likes
I think that’s a very rigid and misguided stance to take, but I can at least understand it.
2 Likes
Clarity before agreement, they say.
Okay, I can see where you are coming from now. I think that Taylor Swift ignoring what her record label wanted is a good example. She decided to cross from country to pop even though the record label told her not to.
1 Like
More or less.
If Taylor Swift said “oh well I guess I can do that I still like country music anyway haha” it wouldn’t make it less of a corporate-motivated decision, it’d just be one she happened to agree with.
1 Like
The interesting thing about Taylor Swift is her versatility. I also like how she advocates for music artists and their rights. Record labels can be crooked af imo.
1 Like
Naw it’s pandering to the satanic cult
1 Like
You dont think it is systemic in most mainstream religions? Not as violent or vocal, but the resentment hasnt dulled much.
It bleeds over in laws, jobs, peer interactions… even subconciously. Thankfully religion is slowly losing its societal influential grip year by year (at least here).
And by the way one of the definitions of persecution is persistent annoyance or harrassment. That’s what I would call all these outrage topics… Persistent annoyance. Not because I don’t like it. But because everyone knows why they’re doing it. ‘Gays are great until i have to see it like its normal’