Actually, he's lives in a mostly-black area of the deep south and owned a blues bar. He's done a lot to support the local community, from arts, to jobs, to sports. He's culturally liberal but politically conservative, as most people of all races in his region are.

You are correct: some culturally poor people get all of their world's information from video games and Bill Mahar. Some deal with their fear by shouting down cultures and opinions they are wholly ignorant of. Some live the lives both groups fear.

But this sort of extremist blow-back does nothing but show your ignorance, and this is why I have a "reddit" style of talking to some people, which is a response to people who can only shout-down opinions based on ad hominems that are completely false. It's not me, but the facts, who ridicule.

It's an interesting question the links I provided discuss. Who "owns" the art? If someone bought the ground the bull is sitting on, would they have the right to remove it?

If you think they have the right to remove it (the law probably disagrees with you here), then it stands to reason that the brave girl is okay, but if you feel that bull stays no matter what, then the brave girl question gets a little more nuanced. Does there have to be an untouchable sphere around all art that must be sensitive to the original piece, and if so, then how large is that sphere?

Don Cheadle's thoughts on the Wonder Woman thing are worth reading if you're going to make the "women-only is as bad as men-only" argument. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...enings-1008452

The historical and societal context can't be ignored. People need to remember that gender equality is still a relatively recent concept and is nowhere near universally practiced even in liberal societies.

Sent from my SM-T520 using Tapatalk

I don't. The Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a corrupt Pope. The Mona Lisa was commissioned by a rich patron. Who commissions an art piece doesn't matter.

I don't have a problem with women-only or men-only screenings. They aren't about rights, they're about hucksterism. The Under Assistant West Coast Promo Man (or Woman (but still in a cravat and seersucker suit)) said, "Hey, I know how to sell some tickets and get some free press!"

These screenings, if there were such things, weren't the product of a groundswell of feminism. Fox News would never have allowed it.


OK, here's the deal about actors: They're pretending to be somebody they aren't.



As long as the actor was playing the character as Albee wrote him, it should be allowed regardless of the actor's race (put him in a Ted Nugent t-shirt -- we'd all get the message). If on the other hand they had hired Bradley Cooper to play him, and Cooper portrayed him as a Black man, then the Albee estate would have cause to complain.

Also, I think the play should be legally allowed to proceed. If the Albee estate says it's now how it was intended, then they are also saying it is not their play, and the director could claim fair use.

That's not how fair use works.

You don't give up your rights of ownership just because someone wants to use it in a way you don't approve. If that was the case, musicians would have no control over if and where their music is used in advertising. There would be no case for "Ice Ice Baby."

The same goes with plays. You have to pay a license to do a play, even if you are doing a high-school play. They have every right to say "no" to any interpretation.

Fair use puts limits on exactly what, how much, and why someone is using a copyrighted work. Showing 5 second clips on a news channel is fair use, showing 50% of a movie under "fair use" isn't. I truly doubt changing a single character would count as "fair use." The estate argues that changing the race of a white apparent Nazi significantly alters the work, and that's mostly likely correct under the law.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_u...ter_of_the_use

History is ugly, and that's just the way it is. It doesn't serve anyone to hide from that fact. We look down on our past, yet you can only imagine how backwards our descendants will think we are.

It's also kind of interesting to note that Huckleberry Finn is one of the most widely banned books in American literature (ranked 14). It was banned from a Massachusetts library within one month of publication. It's easy to look back and consider everyone accepting it as appropriate for the "time," but history shows again and again that the "time" we look down on wasn't as simple as we think.

https://pen.org/on-mark-twains-huckleberry-finn/

Man,I don't know where,or if, to start.

There are no absolutes when it comes to art,so much depends on the artists intent,the viewers predisposed values,and the ever changing society standards.

Many interesting points have been brought up,I can agree with some,others not so much,but understand how someone can hold that opinion,even if I don't agree.

What chaps me is the view that if we don't like or agree with the artist's subject,we are automatically racist,sexist,homophobic,
uncultured or some other derogatory term when it just comes down to "it ain't our thing."






Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

Is there a point where a word substitution actually makes the work more true to its original meaning? The N-word is currently so loaded with baggage that just wasn't there in 1884 when Huck Finn was written. The novel is set in 1835-1845 in the southern US, so the N-word was fairly equivalent to slave at the time in which the novel is set.

I have a natural fetish for the word "Hucksterism". It is so perfect when used in the right context and way. Like downing a beer, full throttle, after a long thirsty death march through a desert. It just makes you feel so good.

"What is our responsibility to showcase an artist's work as initially intended?"

Absolutely none. Chopin's music was intended to be played in small salons. Should we not allow it to be played in public concerts in large halls? Rembrandts weren't intended to be viewed in museums; Beethoven's 9th Symphony wasn't intended to be used for the closing credits of The Huntley-Brinkley Report; Charlie Chaplin's tramp wasn't intended to sell IBM products; and Dustin Hoffman's character in The Graduate was supposed to be a strapping, blond WASP. So what? You do what you want with art, if I don't like it, I can say so, talk about why, in my view, it's bad, or refuse to see it.

I'm not well-studied on that word, but I think that it was offensive enough back then to cause the book to be banned at that time, and continues to be banned or "cleaned up" to this day.

Why does Tarantino and Brooks get a free pass on the word while Twain does not? They all use it in the same way, and it'd be much easier to argue that the extra baggage makes that word less responsible to use as a modern writer.

Short of the fact that he played large halls with all the other superstars of his day, including Liszt? What about the piano concertos?

It's also ironic that you'd bring up Chopin since he preferred the performer played the notes and nothing but the notes.

citation needed.

This is an interesting point. I think there is a difference between public domain works and works still in private domain, especially when the artist is still alive and gaining recognition and money for his or her work.

While much of the context was lost in time, but it doesn't mean that the person who uses the work in insensitive ways doesn't look foolish, even by accident. For example, you wouldn't play some of Bach's cantatas to introduce a Christian "wait until you get married" program.

I don't know where the line is drawn here. While music is easy to rework, what would the the reaction to the Dadaist version of Mona Lisa if they actually did that to the real painting? If altering the meaning of a painting directly like that isn't okay, why doesn't music or novels have the same respect?

Here's a link to controversy surrounding the book. At the time of publication, there was no specific problem with the N-word, although some regarded the book as trashy because it was written in dialect instead of proper English. The first time the use of the N-word was controversial was in 1957.

https://homepages.wmich.edu/~acareywe/huck.html

In my personal experience, the N-word has been very prominent in controversy surrounding the book, but it seems like it at most was one of many sins against grammar and good taste at the time of publication. In fact, one of the criticisms of the book was that it was anti-Southern and made Southerners unfairly look stupid.

A Google search for "Why was Huck Finn banned" produces other interesting results.

I should have said that a lot of Chopin's music was intended to be performed in small salons. As for his preference that pianists play only the notes he wrote, he is on record of having said he preferred the way Liszt played his (Chopin's) etudes to the way he (Chopin) played them. I imagine Chopin meant the way Liszt played the notes, which must have differed from the way Chopin played them, which in turn must have been Chopin's originally intended way that they be played.

To cite just one example of a Rembrandt painting, The Night Watch was commissioned to hang in the banquet hall of the newly built Kloveniersdoelen (Musketeers' Meeting Hall) in Amsterdam. No painting at that time was intended for a public museum, which did not exist in Rembrandt's time.

Chopin wasnt that great of a pianist. Still very good though and a brilliant composer.

Robert Schumann's Birthday was a few days ago (June 8). Liszt was the Ty Cobb of pianists.

I took my daughter to a concert and after the pianist (Kristian Zimerman) finished Chopin's Scherzo in B-flat minor, I remarked that Chopin was the master of all aspects of music--melody, harmony, texture, voicing, rhythm, counterpoint, form--except for one: orchestration. My daughter told me I was wrong: he had an entire orchestra literally at his fingertips.

She hit the nail on the head.

Zimmerman is a true master of the scherzos. You had a treat that day.

His recording of the Grieg Concerto with Karajan is the finest of that piece.

Chopin is more known for his easier work, which likely begets some of his popularity, but there are a few that are considered among the most difficult works from his era.

Of course, Godowski flipped his work into purely diabolical pieces.

Interesting note about Zimmerman.

What led to Krystian Zimerman's surprising comments, walkouts