What Twitter pile on are you watching right now (12 Viewers)

[hugh]

I wonder if some major historic artist had a big moment of reckoning now, as you said Picasso was a shit for example, (my GF has a fine art background and told me about his relationship with Dora Maar which I'd been unaware of prior to meeting her) would it have any impact on future valuations of their work. Probably not, I can't see it becoming socially awkward for the type of people who can afford to own a Picasso or work at that price point to own a Picasso.

Do you mean a historical (i.e. dead) artist who we now discover was a bit of a dick? Like Picasso? Seems to make little difference. Or a living contemporary artist who we discover is a dick? Like if we found out that Damien Hirst was some sort of Weinstein-style sexual abuser/exploiter? Would that affect the value of their work? Dunno ... interesting question. There must be examples of this in the contemporary art world but I'm not sure what they are.

There is one major American artist (of the mid 20th Century era I think) who, it is strongly alleged, killed his wife by pushing her off a balcony but I can't remember who it was right now.

 

[hugh]

But then those telling people that they are "an arse" might also have to listen to the reply being "and you are an arse." And then it's just "arses" being handed back to people, left, right, and centre.

True. But I was using "arse" as shorthand for what would hopefully be somewhat more nuanced debate (and also accept that Twitter is not necessarily the the best place for that).

I suppose my main objection is to public figures with huge public platforms using these platforms to weigh in on complex and difficult debates about which they have no actual expertise ... and then getting outraged (or others getting outraged on their behalf) when they are taken to task about it.

Stop the world I want to get off. They are doing great work making Mars fairly habitable, aren't they? There is that Ray Bradbury short story All Summer in a Day, although it takes place on Venus. I must read that again, it was so beautifully written. I love Ray Bradbury.

Me too. But I haven't read any of his work in years. Should revisit.

 

[David Kronenbourg]

Do you mean a historical (i.e. dead) artist who we now discover was a bit of a dick? Like Picasso? Seems to make little difference. Or a living contemporary artist who we discover is a dick? Like if we found out that Damien Hirst was some sort of Weinstein-style sexual abuser/exploiter? Would that affect the value of their work? Dunno ... interesting question. There must be examples of this in the contemporary art world but I'm not sure what they are.

There is one major American artist (of the mid 20th Century era I think) who, it is strongly alleged, killed his wife by pushing her off a balcony but I can't remember who it was right now.

Carl Andre (i googled it)

 

[dudley]

Stop the world I want to get off. They are doing great work making Mars fairly habitable, aren't they?

Oh no, Elon Musk is. and he's like the most cancelled ever!!

 

[dudley]

You've all got lovely arses

 

[YoungHearts]

True. But I was using "arse" as shorthand for what would hopefully be somewhat more nuanced debate (and also accept that Twitter is not necessarily the the best place for that).

I suppose my main objection is to public figures with huge public platforms using these platforms to weigh in on complex and difficult debates about which they have no actual expertise ... and then getting outraged (or others getting outraged on their behalf) when they are taken to task about it.



Me too. But I haven't read any of his work in years. Should revisit.

I was being playful about the "arse" thing But in all honesty, almost everyone in these "debates" often weigh and wade in feet first. I have no objection to someone like JK-a public figure with a huge platform saying what she wants to say. People have every right to respond to what she is saying, in support, or opposition or somewhere in-between! My sadness comes from the vitriol. And the low-level of comprehension and true engagement. The lack of compassion. The real move towards brokering a genuine understanding of these issues from all the sides, but as you wrote, perhaps Twitter is not necessarily the best place for that. BRING BACK BEOWULF. I would like to task the Twitter users involved in these divisive "debates" to roll out their thesis in the same style as Beowulf, same length, same language and so on. LET'S BRING IT BACK TO TO THE 6TH CENTURY!

 

[egg_]

I suppose my main objection is to public figures with huge public platforms using these platforms to weigh in on complex and difficult debates

I feel like expecting public figures to behave any differently to regular folk is kinda putting them on a pedestal

(unless they're lawmakers breaking the laws they made, or moral enforcers flouting the rules they try to impose on other people, in which case fuck them)

 

[YoungHearts]

You've all got lovely arses

this really made me laugh, and nearly spill my coffee.

 

[hugh]

I feel like expecting public figures to behave any differently to regular folk is kinda putting them on a pedestal

(unless they're lawmakers breaking the laws they made, or moral enforcers flouting the rules they try to impose on other people, in which case fuck them)

Well that's true I suppose and putting them on a pedestal is exactly what I don't want to do. But I don't think that means we should let them away with spouting ill-informed shite either. If I spout ill-informed shite down the pub I might get taken to task by the lad sitting at the table next to me. If I spout ill-informed shite to my 10 million Twitter followers then I have to expect to be taken to task by a couple of million tweeters.

Let's put this another way - MDR has shitloads of Twitter followers now - you don't see him using the platform to espouse whatever half-baked theories he has about things that have little or anything to do with this writing. That's because he's not a dick.

Edit - which is also not to say that I think writers should not be part of public debates by the way ....

 

[YoungHearts]

Well that's true I suppose and putting them on a pedestal is exactly what I don't want to do. But I don't think that means we should let them away with spouting ill-informed shite either. If I spout ill-informed shite down the pub I might get taken to task by the lad sitting at the table next to me. If I spout ill-informed shite to my 10 million Twitter followers then I have to expect to be taken to task by a couple of million tweeters.

Let's put this another way - MDR has shitloads of Twitter followers now - you don't see him using the platform to espouse whatever half-baked theories he has about things that have little or anything to do with this writing. That's because he's not a dick.

Edit - which is also not to say that I think writers should not be part of public debates by the way ....

I agree with elements of this, and disagree with elements of this. And we should set up a band on that basis

 

[egg_]

Let's put this another way - MDR has shitloads of Twitter followers now - you don't see him using the platform to espouse whatever half-baked theories he has about things that have little or anything to do with this writing.

Heh, well yeah, but judging people by MDR's standards is kinda setting the bar unfairly high dontcha think?

 

[egg_]

If I spout ill-informed shite to my 10 million Twitter followers then I have to expect to be taken to task by a couple of million tweeters

Once your public profile is big enough I'm not sure you get away with just keeping your mouth shut anymore. "Silence is complicity" and all that.

And you'd hardly disagree that there's a host of people watching twitter waiting for their chance to pounce on someone who's said something not-exactly-right.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Who’s MDR?

Also, taking a living person to task for something they say is rather different to finding out a dead artist was unpleasant. Anything you know about an artist colours your interpretation of their works and not all artists are treated as saints, even if their work is canon. It’s harder to nudge them from the canon when they’re dead - they can’t apologise and they can’t engage in any discourse about it. However, if you offer an opinion on a public platform followed by thousands of people, you can’t expect not to be challenged.

And this is where context is important. Were these comments completely off the wall? Not really on their own and if it was someone from work you probably wouldn’t bat an eyelid. However, she has a huge platform and has been skirting around transphobic remarks for some time. So it’s not cancelling based on one thing.

Should Harry Potter be cancelled or removed from syllabi or libraries or whatever? I don’t feel so but I’m not a minority or part of a marginalised community. Should we be talking about the value or interpretation of a work because of new information about an author? Absolutely. Should she be exempt from criticism because she created an important and cherished work? Absolutely not.

Even in science where we are talking about facts rather than works of art, we still talk about the effects of placing people on pedestals: James Watson discovered the structure of DNA. By robbing Rosalind Franklin’s work. And his remarks on women and POC really make it hard to stomach buildings and institutes named after him - there’s even a hagiographical painting of him in Trinity that really should fuck off. I’ve literally heard him talk to a bunch of female undergrads telling them they would never be great scientists while standing under that painting.

And anyway, we can buy pretty much any book by any author but now they usually come with an introduction contextualising the work. You can’t really read HP Lovecraft now without being aware of his racism going in or William S. Burroughs without knowing he shot his wife. Having these conversations about Rowling isn’t going to kill Harry Potter any more than knowing anything unpleasant about any popular author or artist.

 

[YoungHearts]

Who’s MDR?

Also, taking a living person to task for something they say is rather different to finding out a dead artist was unpleasant. Anything you know about an artist colours your interpretation of their works and not all artists are treated as saints, even if their work is canon. It’s harder to nudge them from the canon when they’re dead - they can’t apologise and they can’t engage in any discourse about it. However, if you offer an opinion on a public platform followed by thousands of people, you can’t expect not to be challenged.

And this is where context is important. Were these comments completely off the wall? Not really on their own and if it was someone from work you probably wouldn’t bat an eyelid. However, she has a huge platform and has been skirting around transphobic remarks for some time. So it’s not cancelling based on one thing.

Should Harry Potter be cancelled or removed from syllabi or libraries or whatever? I don’t feel so but I’m not a minority or part of a marginalised community. Should we be talking about the value or interpretation of a work because of new information about an author? Absolutely. Should she be exempt from criticism because she created an important and cherished work? Absolutely not.

Even in science where we are talking about facts rather than works of art, we still talk about the effects of placing people on pedestals: James Watson discovered the structure of DNA. By robbing Rosalind Franklin’s work. And his remarks on women and POC really make it hard to stomach buildings and institutes named after him - there’s even a hagiographical painting of him in Trinity that really should fuck off. I’ve literally heard him talk to a bunch of female undergrads telling them they would never be great scientists while standing under that painting.

And anyway, we can buy pretty much any book by any author but now they usually come with an introduction contextualising the work. You can’t really read HP Lovecraft now without being aware of his racism going in or William S. Burroughs without knowing he shot his wife. Having these conversations about Rowling isn’t going to kill Harry Potter any more than knowing anything unpleasant about any popular author or artist.

I agree with much of this, and perhaps, unsurprisingly, disagree with some aspects! It *could* be argued that women are also a marginalised community. We certainly don't have the issues licked that women face every day. This particular issue that JK Rowling is in the storm of at the moment is getting increasingly toxic-and I am very hesitant to wade in-but hey, I guess at least I am dipping my toe in a little on Thumped, and not on Twitter.....but I will say that my desire is always that people are reasonable towards each other, and that the balancing of rights is fundamental and should be thoroughly examined-perhaps, as has been mentioned-Twitter is not that forum! Some of the nuts and bolts of these issues are getting lost in a hectoring that leaves me feeling quite defeated, almost like being sat at a dinner table where two friends are roaring at each other, and language and meaning kind of disintegrates into nothingness.

From my own perspective, I have lived almost four decades on this earth, and I have never experienced a more misogynistic period than the last few years. For example, if you even do a cursory glance into statistics at home and abroad in terms of criminal law-and the cases of sexual assault, rape, the incel "movement" and so forth, it is incredibly distressing. I was talking to my Mum about this a while back, who is 70 now-she agrees, and she cannot understand what is happening. I have to be honest, sometimes I don't know what the hell is happening, and I don't really have any easy solutions, except to say that working towards a reasonable balancing of rights, and a considered approach to issues that have very far-reaching effects to many interest groups is key. I am led by compassion and reason. It's sad to write that I have never lived through as misogynistic a time as now, but that's how I feel. However, I still have a love of the world, and a belief in better days to come (I can almost hear Glinda the Good Witch saying those words...I do love her actually).

I guess that is where I will leave it for today, as I unfortunately have to get back to work. I wish you all a good evening!

 

[Lili Marlene]

There's an interesting thing about fame going on, where people seem to think that because they are famous and a good thing now they must be famous and good forever. And it leads to people like JK Rowling retconning all sorts of current cultural themes onto her own work because she feels that she must stay that way.

And I have to respond and say Harry Potter sold a gazillion copies, it's not going to be forgotten any time soon. If the author being a dumb idiot online means the Harry Potter theme park is closed down because people stop going then so what. It's just commerce. Build a new theme park to whatever reflects culture now. Things are meant to change. There's lots of good in Harry Potter but stop buying into your own PR as WISE STORYTELLER and realize you wrote the books in a particular time and place.

 

[pete]

Who’s MDR?

@MDR

https:/Twitter.com/mumblindeafro

 

[ernesto]

thank fuck Muhammad Ali wasnt on twitter.
or maybe i wish he was. im unsure

 

[hugh]

Once your public profile is big enough I'm not sure you get away with just keeping your mouth shut anymore. "Silence is complicity" and all that.

And you'd hardly disagree that there's a host of people watching twitter waiting for their chance to pounce on someone who's said something not-exactly-right.

Well maybe ....... but that veers very close to the sorts of things the "sure you can't say anything anymore" brigade will say.

The people I feel sorry for are the ordinary Joe Soaps with some measly amount of followers who say something that inexplicably gets retweeted way beyond their normal or conceivable reach who then get pounced on. That sucks.

Edit: possibly what I am saying up there is that you are saying something that is not-exactly-right Egg

 

[Cormcolash]

As I wrote, I have a long list. Lockdown has been good for the updating of the list.

 

[egg_]

possibly what I am saying up there is that you are saying something that is not-exactly-right Egg

Haha indeed it is. I'd never dare saying anything like this on twitter