#also want to clarify that i define purity culture as the idea that if something makes anyone uncomfortable then it shouldn't exist

[morayofsunshine]

Watching the featurette about how American Psycho was adapted from book to movie and it's absolutely fascinating to me to see that purity culture and people judging a work of art only based on what they've heard about it isn't a new thing at all.

Like, in the 2000's when the book was adapted, and in the 80's when it was published, people, smart people, people well known for literary critique, would read this book and then completely miss the point. They felt that it was antifeminist literature because it depicted horrific acts and attitudes against women, and they argued that it shouldn't be published or adapted at all based on that. Even though (from what I interpreted from the film) these depictions weren't a glorification of misogyny, but a direct condemnation of it.

And it makes me sad that people will - without reading the book or watching the movie themselves - say that these kinds of works shouldn't be published, because I think that this kind of art needs to be made. It's not pretty. It's rather uncomfortable to watch. But it's important to be able to spotlight these kinds of subjects through an artistic lens, so that we can start conversations about them.

[single-malt-scotch]

me and my controversial topics will stay under the cut lol.

i know i blabbed lightly of this probably but obviously one of the things that put me off from mcyt for a few years was when the "rpf is bad" opinion started circling the internet more frequently, in tumblr's 2014-2016 toxic callout culture era. i think that era shifted YT fandoms as a whole and turned loads of ppl to presenting creators with their "characters" specifically (like i recall this early on w markiplier and jacksepticeye) and clarifying it often. but i find this all very amusing when 80% of the ppl dont actually play characters at all, and ppl are either just writing "rpf" or theyre just turned a creator into their own OCs. i think its sometimes just a way to not associate with the idea of rpf even if its like, right there.

like, the problem i think is that the majority of fans, namely the young teens that are the main audience, are very consumed by purity culture and being free of problematic interests in such a black and white way. i get it, i understand why you dont want to be associated with rpf. when i think of weird and uncomfortable rpf i think of.... fan fiction of the Beatles, or something. a band or a movie actor is someone we can easily define as "not a character" but... when it comes to mcyt, its a little more grey, because i know some of them goof around in games and do bits and exaggerate themselves.

and yet i still think its counter productive to get caught up in these woes, and to deny what exactly it means for something to be rpf, or have rpf elements. ironically i think the indulgence people have with making them characters worsens the parasocial/obsessive/skewed lens people have on creators these days. how? well its bc of how ppl get super attached to characters... comfort characters, kinning, etc. i love characters just an intensely, but when you apply this to a youtuber who like, doesnt actually play a character? even tho you wanna act like they do? .....there can definitely be issues in that and its def what makes me not get into the fandom as it is. you elevate them with your view of them as a character by being able to indulge in them way further bc they are kind of "yours" now. but also theyre not really.

but specifically back to the rpf vs not rpf topic- basically what i really intend to say is that like. there is harm in becoming too concerned over what youre writing bc you can fall into that mindset of being far too aware in a way thats just gonna make you feel terrible all the time (i experienced this myself when i was like 15 on tumblr and wanted to avoid any potential of touching something "problematic"). this post isnt to declare you are writing rpf, or you arent, or whatever the"rules" are about when it is or isnt, but just that theres always time to just accept shit as it is when the blurry lines arent actually doing any harm in this case. and that even trying to force yourself into the seemingly right direction doesnt exactly solve all the other problems either.

cuz i did all the things ppl would wanna call me out for and i dont care at this point. i wrote fan fiction where the guys where more characters than themselves, in a fantasy world for the server. but i also wrote fan fiction that was irl and based during minecon! and it was smut. and all i can say to that now is...ok. im not even gonna sit around and vehemently condemn it either? even if i never plan to do it again. cuz i dont see the need to punish my past self, nor do i see the reason to continue questioning the nuances of where the line between hard rpf and hard fiction lies with this bc its a never ending conversation. its just not worth my time to worry anymore. i know how to not be weird about it, i know my boundaries between creator and fan, i dont even get near the extent that some people do... i feel like im aware enough to feel like im not causing harm/can make logical choices when issues arise. i was a niave teenager before, and wrote such things with little thought, and had a much less healthy mindset about it! but the way the internet laid on the pressure of these strict definitions was the moment i felt shame, and as if i couldnt ever redeem myself from actions i understand far better now. its really not worth the stress and heartache to get so caught up in it.

[laranjatoranjalaranja]

Aesthetics and History of Art: what is their role under fully-automated luxury communism?

Aesthetics has become unpopular among the left. Today, it is commonly associated with fascism and right-wing manipulative propaganda tactics. Walter Benjamin’s famous text about the modern reproduction of artworks can be credited with laying out a great part of the structure and terms of this discussion. In his work, what he calls the “aestheticisation of politics” is famously associated with fascism, while art, understood as a kind of aesthetics that has been politicised, is contrarily and positively associated with communism.

The main reason why this text acquired the cult status it has today, within the artworld, is because of the way in which it defines contemporary art as inherently revolutionary. Benjamin believes that, thanks to recent advances in its technological reproducibility, truly contemporary artworks were finally freed from old hierarchical ideas of originality, and thus acquired a new and enhanced political potential, particularly suitable for the communist political project.

Aesthetics, on the other hand, without the politisation that would turn it into art, becomes simply the domain of appearances, simulation, and spectacle in the Debordian sense. And this is where this theory starts to show its fragility. 

A closer look at Benjamin’s theory reveals it to be susceptible to the same criticism as Debord’s Society of the Spectacle. As Jacques Rancière has pointed out in The Emancipated Spectator, the separation between the simulated appearances that seduce the masses, and the true reality only accessible to some, is unfounded and misleading, despite being commonly understood to be a fact of life. 

The legitimacy of this separation depends on a thriving platonic idealism that often affects both right and left of the political spectrum and which is particularly prevalent in the Western world. According to this ideology, the mind and the body are hierarchically separated. While the mind is our reliable means of accessing the truth, the body is the deceiving realm of flawed sensorial perception which is completely unreliable unless previously subjected to correction by reason.

If we understand aesthetics in its broadest possible form, as simply that which relates to the senses, it inevitably falls into the suspicious second half of this division. But art can still be saved if it is not understood in aesthetic terms but as politicised aesthetics. The politicisation of aesthetics entails fighting ‘the spectacle’, by subjecting the ‘simulations’ our body perceives to the political ‘corrections’ of our intellectual reason.**

To further clarify why this kind of framework is flawed, it becomes useful to make a quick detour to the work of another author. In Pedagogy of The Oppressed, Paulo Freire defines praxis as a dialectical union between theory and practice. This means that, while our theory can, and should, inform our practice, this same practice also needs to inform our theory, thus making sure it matches our actual, lived reality. This means that the relationship between mind and body, theory and practice, reason and senses, is better understood as one of cooperation and mutual dependency than one of hierarchy and antagonism. It also means that aesthetics, broadly understood, plays an essential role in this dialectical process.

But, going back to Benjamin, I have said that the main reason his theory got so popular within the artworld is because of the revolutionary character he assigned to art. But this is not the only reason. Complementing this idea, we have a second one which relates to the phenomenon of demonization of aesthetics I mentioned in the very beginning. 

It is becoming increasingly hard to ignore the fact that the art faces serious, and inherent, issues and contradictions. The complementing aspect of what makes Benjamin’s argument appealing is that it allows us to keep our faith in art, while also feeling like we are targeting the problems that ‘threaten its purity and integrity’. These problems are thus presented as non-inherent, originating from external sources, and a great deal of what made this ‘outsourcing’ possible has been the use of aesthetics as a scapegoat for the issues affecting art in general.

Aesthetics has proven to be a particularly good fit for this. This is because if, on the one hand, some people felt suspicious towards art because they thought it was shallow, futile and even deceiving, we could argue, like Benjamin, that this was a problem of aesthetics and not art. Although this ‘futility’ argument is relatively common, it is not a very strong one (as I have tried to show when I mentioned Ranciere’s critique). A strong argument that can be directed against art, on the other hand, would be that it is a historical invention of the modern West, which means it has not always existed and, therefore, the usefulness of its continued existence becomes open for debate. But this critique too can be diverted towards aesthetics. 

In fact, aesthetics much more that art, was accused of being something made up in the 18th century by Western white males unaware of their privilege, to create rules that would validate what they thought of as beautiful and worthy of attention. Aesthetics, as a discipline, deserved all the criticism it got. More recently, the art market and the ‘artworld’, where also targets of a similar critique which, was also perfectly valid but, for some reason, continued to assume that all these things can be separated from art itself. As if art could ever have come to existence, and continue to exist, without them.

This criticism of aesthetics as an academic discipline, the art market or the artworld, is usually done using a leftist discourse. But critiques that extend to the notion of art itself are rare. 

Occasionally, more radical leftists will become interested in topics like art. And many of them do end up realising, half way through their own research, courses or degrees, that all these accusations often thrown at ‘aesthetics’ are just as applicable to our notion of art. Frequently, these people end up being the ones who are more dismissive and suspicious of our contemporary cultural institutions in general. They often believe that art, like most of our contemporary culture, can be categorised as ‘capitalist spectacle’, and therefore should be understood as a distraction to be ignored. 

These people can be easily convinced that art is a capitalist invention of the modern West. But the conclusion they draw from this is that the best thing to do is to dismiss all the things presented as art by our artistic institutions as capitalist distraction tactics, meant to divert our attention from the ‘real’ issues. What they fail to recognise, on the one hand, is that art is not a distraction to be ignored, but a weapon to be fought. And, on the other hand, they make the mistake of accepting the terms in which the capitalist artworld defines what aesthetics can be.

Capitalism knows well how to use aesthetics to its advantage. It has developed things like marketing and branding, as well as art, which are complex and highly effective techniques designed to work specifically to its own advantage. It knows how to tell the seductive and persuasive story of its own triumph and legitimacy. 

This left, on the other hand, has little more than outdated ideas of communist propaganda, which are literally from the last century. And this is because, today, the left often conceives of aesthetics as either evil or merely secondary. We haven’t taken any time to develop an alternative way to understand this other part of us, the one that is more connected to the senses and which is equally essential to understanding the world around us.

While part of what I will do here is question the validity of, and politics behind, our modern notion of art, I also want to argue that aesthetics is, actually, not necessarily susceptible to the same criticism. Unlike art, the artworld and the art market, the word aesthetics can have an older, broader meaning. Aesthetics, as that which simply relates to the senses, is not susceptible to the same criticism as its modern academic homonym, or as art, because it is not to be understood as a Human creation. It is not connected to any idea of ‘what it means to be Human’ or any ‘essence’ of Humanity. So, in this specific sense, aesthetics can be said to be an a-historical concept.

The prevailing platonic idealism I mentioned previously, leads people to prefer thinking in terms of Art and Humanity, rather than in terms of aesthetics, which would imply the recognition of a common ground, shared among us and all the other animals.

Aesthetic sensibility, understood in this way, is possessed by anyone and anything that simply possesses senses. From humans, to animals and maybe even other kinds of beings. While we can say that not all cultures have art because the concept of art is an invention of the West, we cannot say the same of things like aesthetics in this broad sense.***

Rather than dismissing aesthetics as a product of capitalism or a more or less futile thing to be dealt with ‘later’, we need to recognise that capitalism will thrive as long as it continues presenting itself as the best, or even the only, materially realistic, viable, alternative. No matter how many theories and manifestos the left has, as long we are not capable of presenting aesthetic alternatives to what capitalism has been imposing, none of it will feel, or even be, translatable to real life.

The left cannot go on pretending like aesthetics is a dispensable, secondary issue. Aesthetics is not a distraction, it is an essential part of how we experience our lives and therefore it too deserves a pride of place in our political agenda. Ignoring it will not make it irrelevant.

At this point, I have been studying History of Art in academia for 5 years, and it strikes me how, despite appearances, truly revolutionary History of Art barely exists. Despite the overwhelming number of so-called radical journals and other kinds of left-wing publications, most of it is actually liberal. What I mean by this is that most of the people who write for these publications seem to share a common goal: to free art from the elites’ domination (much like Benjamin). This is a liberal goal because it aims at reforming rather than revolutionising the existing system. It aims at saving art at all cost and it rules of even considering that its obvious and persisting problems might be inherent and that a possible solution would be to replace it with something radically different. Related to this, is another striking problem which is the prevailing assumption that art and the elites are separable to begin with.

I want to make it clear here that art cannot be understood (especially within academic contexts) as a human constant. Studying the history of art implies that art has a history and, therefore, a historical origin. Humans were not ‘artistic’ by nature, since the beginning of time. Art is a concept created by the modern West. There were no actual synonyms to the word Art in non-Western cultures and no one in Europe was even talking about such a thing until the 18th century (see Kristeller’s The Modern System of The Arts (pt. I and pt. II) and Shiner’s The Invention of Art*). 

It is irresponsible and anachronistic for Art historians to say or imply that art is something that humans have always done. This is an imperialistic tendency that we need to, not only distance ourselves from, but also actively fight against. And I stress actively fight against because these things I am writing about here have already been mentioned in academic publications from decades ago (Kristeller’s first article was published in 1951).

Since its creation, Art has existed to serve the capitalist elites (see Taylor’s Art, An Enemy of The People*). It was created by them, for them. To both serve and represent their interests. 

I say capitalist elites, specifically, because the works commissioned by the traditional nobility did not fit with our modern idea of art in their original contexts. The treasures of the French monarchy only became Art when the bourgeoisie took over and made them what they are today - the collection of an Art museum. These objects were stripped of their original meanings and functions and became targets of ‘disinterested contemplation’ and those who see this as a revolutionary triumph over an oppressive regime conveniently forget that the reality is more complex and the same thing was also done with foreign objects stolen by the French colonisers, shortly after.

Today, many people are still wondering why is Duchamp’s Fountain Art. The answer is, mainly, because this is what the elites behind our art institutions decided is art. The line between Art and non-Art is merely an institutional one. Art is an institutional system. And this is a system whose tables cannot simply be turned because, in order for Art to exist, it needs to distinguish itself from other modern categories like crafts and popular culture. The category of Art depends on this hierarchical distinction because, simply put, Art is High Culture.

This means that as long as art, as we understand it today, exists, there must also exist a privileged group that gets to draw the line between High and low culture. The cultural identity of these elites might change overtime, but their status as oppressors will always remain, within this structure. This is why the quest to ‘democratise’ art is merely reformist rather than revolutionary. 

I am not advocating for the burning of museums, Futurism style. I do think museums are important sources of information that should be free especially when they are public. What I am saying is that when these museums exhibit things that were not originally intended to be art as if they have always and unquestionably been so, they are making a serious mistake. They are silencing alternative narratives and disrespecting the people who created the objects they claim to be spreading knowledge about. They are suppressing aesthetic diversity, not promoting it.

Regarding contemporary Art museums and galleries, I think it would be fair to say that they are mostly bullshit. I make intentional efforts not to give any of my money to them (this also applies to academic Art Schools). I sometimes visit them, when they are free, because I want my opinions to be informed. I don’t usually pay for any tickets (they are usually even more expensive than regular museums anyway) nor do I let myself be troubled by those who believe I cannot be an expert on Art with a proper opinion, if I don’t go to all the ‘landmark’ cultural events. I try not to let art snobs like Jonathan Jones dictate which cultural events are or aren’t worthy of attention.

To conclude, History of Art as an academic discipline still has serious issues. Real History of Art should recognise that Art has a specific historical origin, and not treat it like a mysterious (mythical) part of ‘Human Nature’. 

To do leftist History of Art, nevertheless, we need to take this even one step further and study the consequences of the capitalist origins of this phenomenon and how it developed from there. The impacts of its structure, the way it works, how it legitimises itself, its weaknesses, all these should be analysed in ways that will allow this phenomenon to be coherently perceived through a left-wing lens, subsequently enabling us to imagine viable alternatives to the current Art system (Richard Sennett does something like this in his book The Craftsman. If you don’t feel like reading, he also explains it beautifully in his lectures on craftsmanship available on youtube).

Also, I feel like I should mention that the mythical treatment Art historians give their subject, either emphatically and intentionally or through the passive and implicit acceptance of this mythical definition, is probably one of the things that mostly contributes to the much criticised workings of our contemporary art market. Surely, one of the reasons why artworks are sold at such exorbitant prices is because what these people are buying is not just good looking paintings. These objects are being sold as the latest, most recent pieces in the important puzzle that is Human History. Once gathered all in the correct order, these pieces are thought to reveal what it means to be Human. The ‘History’ of Art I’ve been criticising here is largely responsible for the maintenance of this profitable myth, that has been giving the powerful disproportionate control over the narratives of our collective existences.

Notes:

* If you don’t have access to these texts via your public libraries, genesis online library should have it for free download, just click here and try following the links presented (they are forced to keep changing domains because certain people don’t like it when information is too accessible).

** I do believe there is something more to be said about this politicisation of aesthetics. I think it can be a very useful and interesting terminology, but it needs to be conceptualised outside of this limited ‘reality versus simulation’ framework.

*** Or, for example, of something like venal blood. All people and animals with venal blood can be said to have venal blood, despite understanding or not what this means. A culture which does not understand what we mean by ‘art’ today, cannot be said to have it (they will have other things, which they will understand in different terms, and which, I want to emphasise, are not of lesser value just because they won’t fit our ‘artistic model’).

[fornsidramerica]

FAQ 2

We’ve gotten some common questions today that we’d like to share so the answers can be found easily. We’ll add more as we keep getting them so everyone can find them in the same place. FAQ Page | FAQ 2 (this post)

What do you mean by ‘Humanism?’ Our organization believes that any religion or spiritual identity should focus first and foremost on the needs and well-being of the practitioner. We are for PEOPLE before creeds, dogma, or doctrine. 

What’s are you hoping to achieve?  We are hoping to establish a religious identity that accurately represents and includes the many diverse practices, beliefs, and identities present in our North American Heathen culture. I know this is broad, but really this was our starting purpose and mission. The how and the intricacies of all of this are integrated into how the organization is structured and the language of our bylaws, which will be coming soon.

Does your group also welcome Anglo-Saxon and Germanic-style Heathens? Yes! Our organization will primarily focus on Norse-Icelandic, but we want everyone to feel included as like their Heathen practices and beliefs are welcome and validated.

Is this organization affiliated with the Troth in any way? No, our organization is not part of the Troth, and none of our leadership has ever been affiliated with Troth staff.

Is this organization affiliated with The Asatru Community in any way?  No, our organization is not part of TAC, and none of our leadership has ever been affiliated with TAC staff. 

Why ‘Forn Sidr’ instead of Asatru?  ‘Asatru’ is a denomination that places a focus on honoring and worshiping the Aesir. ‘Forn Sidr’ refers to all of the folk practices and beliefs of the Norse-Germanic cultures that are still living today, including honoring such Powers and Spirits as Jotnar/Etins, Wights/Landvaettir, Dwarves, Elves, and more. As we are hoping to be as inclusive of all the various beliefs present in American Heathenry as possible, we thought an all-inclusive term like ‘Forn Sidr’ was the most appropriate. Additionally, the Scandinavian countries typically refer to their Heathen practices as Forn Sidr or Forn Sed (depending on the language) to describe their beliefs that are also pro-LGBTQIA and against white supremacy.

Are you Folkish/Volkisch?  Definitely not. We do not support the idea that the practice of Norse-Germanic beliefs is restricted to genetic purity. We want Norse Heathenry to be accessible and safe for anyone who wants to find community with us. 

Has the group signed Declaration 127?  While we agree with Declaration 127, our entire organization is being set up so that we take a firmer and more clearly defined stance toward addressing biases, microaggressions, discrimination, and extremist ideologies. This will include a Code of Conduct, Inclusion and Diversity Agreement, and a position for Social Justice Director to be held by someone who understands marginalization and oppression first-hand, and who is a professional in that field. We are taking a very proactive approach to confront the subtle rhetoric that gives way to extremism and Hate. Declaration 127 was a good start, but we must keep striving forward in our education on social awareness and how to protect and empower minorities. We’re not interested in checking a box. We want change.

What makes you different from the Troth and TAC? We are approaching this endeavor very differently than other Heathen orgs have thus far. Covering all of the differences will take pages and pages. But let’s cover the basics: The Troth is registered as a religious charity organization and so isn’t technically considered a legal religious affiliation by US legal standards. We intend to ensure we meet all legal requirements for a religious identity to help our members protect their right; including a list of Tenets, Beliefs, Texts, and religious services.  Addition: The Troth has used “Reconstructionism” to define the beliefs and practices of their organization. We are Revivalist rather than Reconstructionist, believing that our religious identity should meet the changing needs and values of the modern age and the modern practitioner. The Asatru Community’s purpose is to connect Heathens over the internet from around the world and allows non-folkish kindreds to be found easily. TAC was started to be an avenue for Heathens to connect and interact with each other online. In contrast, our organization is focused on building real-world community spaces that establish an expectation of meeting the spiritual needs of our rapidly growing North American Heathen Community. We will have a separation between our Religious leadership and our Non-Profit leadership. Non-Profit leadership will never have direct control over Clergy education, religious education, religious services, spiritual guidance, or any other areas that are the responsibility of the Religious Education Director or educated and qualified Clergy. We’re committed to inviting accountability as well as representation in leadership. We believe that our minorities should be represented by those that are serving the community to ensure that more voices are heard in the discussions and decision-making processes of Forn Sidr of America. We need LGBTQIA leadership. We need People of Color in Leadership.  We also want to foster respectful interfaith and international relationships and dialogue with the countries represented in North America, including First Nations, and non-pagan religions.  There are many other ways we’re really different, but they just cannot be covered here. Hopefully, we can make that apparent soon enough.

4/12/2019 - It’s been brought to our attention that some of our FAQ’s wording may be a little confusing. In the interest of transparency and accuracy, please note the following clarifications. 

Clarifying Amendments:

Our Non-Profit Religious Status We are a Church who intends to acquire a 501c3 Charity Non-Profit status under the US Tax Code, which includes subgroups in our Bylaws to allow us to establish Forn Sidr of America chapters. Clarification: Both The Troth and The Asatru Community are Churches but they have already achieved their 501c3 Charity Non-Profit status. They do have all of the legal rights of religious affiliation, but they are not a “religious organization” which is something else entirely under the US tax code. Thank you to the Troth for the clarification of their Bylaws. 

On Inclusion and Diversity We have laid out really specific language in our Bylaws to ensure a culture of Inclusion and decolonization of Heathen practices in our denomination and this is a difference in Constitutional language of our Bylaws, but perhaps not different in our goals. The Troth is expresed that they are with us in our commitment to empower People of Color and LGBTQIA in leadership and also embody this goal through their leadership. This is not a difference between us, but rather a common goal. We are not aware of this being a commitment of The Asatru Community. On Revivalism We have elected to have the focus of the denomination to focus on revival of the worship of Norse deities in a manner that best highlights the experiences and practices of the modern practitioner. Historical recreation is not our goal. However, we are welcoming of any practitioners who want to join the denomination of Forn Sidr with reconstructionist practices.  Clarification: The Troth has not taken an official stance one way or another but has leadership who express both belief perspectives in terms of practice.

On Humanism This is being confused with the philosophy of ‘Secular Humanism’ (another name for atheism) which is different than our Humanistic religious stance. We will be releasing a complete Explanation of Beliefs shortly but we support devotional polytheism, paganism, earth-centered agnosticism, and a wide range of other stances on Deities (hence the ‘Universalist’ stance of accepting many practices and faith expressions under the Norse umbrella). The main thing is that we believe that religious practice should serve the needs and well-being of the practitioner rather than focusing on doctrine or dogma.

On not being Asatru The biggest difference is that the word ‘Asatru’ denotes a focus on the Aesir. We do not feel this accurately encompasses all of the Deities, Powers, Beliefs, and Practices that we hope to include in our Denominational Practice, and so we selected a name that encompasses all of them - ‘Forn Sidr’, the term used in the Eddas to refer to all of the beliefs and customs of the Pre-Christian Norse-Germanic people.

We also want to reaffirm that we are not in competition with ANY Asatru organizations. We are a different denomination entirely, and we hope to work with Asatu organizations in Interfaith Action and dialogue on important issues in Heathenry. The Troth has already expressed hopes to work in positive interfaith cross-denominational collaboration and we look forward to fostering those community relationships.