Frank Miller completely loses the plot

[Sci]

xortex wrote:

---

Did you see the part where the guy got his head choped off? That guy must have been a democrate.

You are completely ignoring the substance of Brin's argument.

[xortex]

It's a specious and totally irrelovant argument coming from a guy I just read is living in a black hole to write his next book.

[Sci]

xortex wrote:

---

It's a specious and totally irrelovant argument

Okay, so your thesis is that Brin's argument that it is dishonest to portray the past inaccurately in order to advance an anti-democratic philosophy is specious and irrelevant.

Now, provide supporting argumentation.

[xortex]

Art for art's sake. Artists are liars and can't be trusted.

[Sci]

xortex wrote:

---

Art for art's sake.

This is not an argument in support of your thesis. It does nothing to counter Brin's thesis.

Artists are liers and can't be trusted.

"Liars."

And that's just a ridiculous untruth. Plenty of artists are honest, and plenty aren't, and plenty are somewhere in the middle. Nothing about art is intrinsically dishonest or untrustworthy. It's also a non sequitor that provides no counter to Brin's thesis.

[xortex]

Are you sure you're not a Thermian? You're putting the carriage in front of the horse. Do you think it was purposefully inaccurate to push his political idealogy? You're splitting hairs.

[RJDiogenes]

Plenty of art promotes a political or ideological agenda-- art is the world seen through the eyes of the artist. When the artist is a decent, insightful human being, this is a good thing; when the artist is a corrupt, hateful monster like Frank Miller, then it's a bad thing.

[xortex]

Decent? Def? Who cares what he's like personally. Personalities and politicskilled Star Trek. Great art is sometimes meant to be disturbing and indecent. Beethoven was probably not a nice man and Wagner was an antisemite. If you want to talk intelligantly about their music, that's another thing.

[Sci]

xortex wrote:

---

Great art is sometimes meant to be disturbing and indecent.

Sure. But not all disturbing or indecent art is great. If Miller is distorting history to advance an immoral agenda, he should be called on it.

Not censored, mind you. Just called out.

Meanwhile, you have yet to support your thesis.

[xortex]

I don't see how you can seperate art from the man who creates it or use it against him as a personal attack of his political inclinations and or agenda.

[Sci]

xortex wrote:

---

I don't see how you can seperate art from the man who creates it or use it against him as a personal attack of his political inclinations and or agenda.

That statement is self-contradictory. If it is impossible to separate a work of art from the artist who creates it, then it is perfectly appropriate to use the message of that work of art to argue against the moral character of the artist.

If an artist creates a work of art advocating for fascism, and if you cannot separate the artist from the art, then it is appropriate to take that work of art that advocates fascism and therefore condemn the artist for advocating fascism.

[xortex]

And the message of the 300 was? The underdog can win in certain circumstances if he's brave enough. Is that a fascist concept in a fictional world?

[Sci]

xortex wrote:

---

And the message of the 300 was? The underdog can win in certain circumstances if he's brave enough. Is that a fascist concept in a fictional world?

I think Brin nicely outlined the ways in which 300, as a narrative, showed contempt for the idea of non-militarism and non-hierarchical social structures, and in which it supported authoritarianism -- both by portraying the militarism of Spartan society as a good thing and by ignoring those aspects of Spartan society that modern liberal democracy would tend to find objectionable, such as slavery and institutional sexual abuse of children.

[xortex]

You're superimposing a work of fiction on reality again. Art Transcends reality and life. You don't have to like it or consider it good. I consider it good art but that's a whole other set of discussions. It's a fallacy to say it's bad art so therefore the artist is bad. The artist doesn't have to subscribe to his own art. He could be propegating shit for all we know willfully and knowingly and trying to decieve us all. Of course he's getting paid for that and we're paying him but that doesn't change things. He doesn't owe us anything. Finding violence offensable is another issue also. Hence the movie full Metal Jacket and Clockwork Orange and other such notable classics.

[Sci]

xortex wrote:

---

You're superimposing a work of fiction on reality again.

No. Pointing out the ways in which a work of historical fiction distorts reality to advance an agenda is not "superimposing reality on a work of fiction;" it's acknowledging the ways in which that work of fiction deviate from reality when reality conflicts with its ideology.

It is acknowledging that a political ideology is driving the artist in creating that work, and that the artist is deliberately structuring the work to advance that ideology -- even to the point of portraying history inaccurately when reality would make it harder to advance that ideology.

It's a fallacy to say it's bad art so therefore the artist is bad.

No one said that.

Frank Miller is a bad person, but he is not a bad person because 300 is bad. Frank Miller is a bad person because he tries to advance a political ideology that is deeply authoritarian and repressive.

The artist doesn't have to subscribe to his own art.

The problem with that hypothesis is that Miller's non-fiction writings make it clear that he, in reality, subscribes to the authoritarian, militaristic, anti-democratic ideology that 300 advances.

He doesn't owe us anything.

No one said he owes anyone anything. But he still deserves to be called on his authoritarianism.