Time and distance are almost always ...it's easier with them. Everything can be understood, to a degree. Everything can be fascinating. Everything is a thread in some huge tapestry.
Place also plays a role-the more far removed, at least in our mind-the better. "better".
Yes, living far away from it all helps to a degree. But it is still a question that bothers me.
I am reading some of the memoirs of people from German Resistance and other people living in Germany through the Nazi regime, and they had similar issues.
no, I meant something else, I'm sorry for being confusing
didn't mean where one lives at the time of, while being affected....I meant something that happenned in the past, maybe very distant past-AND faraway from where we mentally place ourselves more or less.
It really needs to be brought to us brilliantly via something, to register for what it was, for what it was for the living back then and there.
Nutten, Gruppensex, Kokainparties, Maschinengewehrfeuer gegen Autofahrer, Jazz, Karneval, Halluzinatorische Träume...
Hesse hat im Wald bei Veganern gelebt, bei Nudisten, war Tramp in den Alpen, hat als Pazifist demonstriert - er war Hippie 50 Jahre vor den Hippie. Nur über Kotze & Scheiße hat er nicht geschrieben - Schwächling
Hey, I have nothing agains Hesse. He was ahead of his time and still is very much liked. I just didn't connect with him, and not because of a lack of shit and vomit.
Ein gewisser Balzac soll in "Verlorene Illusionen" auch im ersten ⅓ das Stilmittel der Langeweile in der Provinz eingesetzt haben, bevor es in Paris (+ Glanz & Elend + Vater Goriot) dann spannend wurde. Oder Thomas Mann in Mario & der Zauberer. Und alles ohne bunte Bilder, Raumschiffe & Hexen. Einfach irre. Культура...
Übrigens, das Henkershaus & der Kerker, wo die Kindsmörderin aus Meister & Marg. einsaß und hingerichtet wurde, ist gleich hinter unserer Küche. Aber was wusste dieser Bulgakow schon.
What do you leave behind on Solaris' planet? And now the fucking answer to your question: What is the planet sending you? (from which you want to hide, by the wayside)
By the way, if you make the wrong decision, you can always start an in-depth philosophical discussion about the freedom of the will. At Shashlyk & Vodka
That was a good and important rambling. I don’t have answers either but it’s calming to know that someone has similar feelings. I would sat It’s more of an individual approach to every artist…
It is individual, sure. It should be, rationally. But emotionally, I am looking for a one-size-fits-all solution.
We have an ongoing masochistic game among ourselves, debating who of our favorite but already dead artists would zed out. My money is on Letov, even though I do like him very much.
I have a habit to check if someone zedded before listening to their songs etc haha It feels weird but at the end of the day it’s just an extra filter- I cannot help but not to feel uncomfortable. And I think it’s different to cancel culture, although they may seem related. And it’s not internal censorship, it’s something else- like “You betrayed me, I don’t want to deal with you anymore” kinda vibe. But personally I didn’t have a strong cases of that (yet)- most of my fav Russian artists (there aren’t many of them) happened to be quite anti-gov.
Yes, luckily, there were relatively few huge disappointments (Picnic one of them). If ten years ago I was asked who would nazify if push comes to shove, I would probably be 70-75 percent correct.
I am always very skeptical of people who disparage artists or anyone because they do not conform to their point of view. Morality in general is easy to manipulate.
Nazis honestly felt that consuming anything Jewish was immoral.
A beloved relative of mine who was Christian in a fundamentalist way sent me a list in the 80s of artists and musicians that I should not read because they were gay and therefore some of their homosexual ideology may be transported in their works -- the list included Elton John and Shakespeare.
Now even if I agree with the people who are pointing fingers I don’t listen.
I think I know what you mean, and I agree. Especially in the age of social networks, talking about morality is dangerous.
But yet again, there is a war going on, and I have a very clear stance on it. But my stance on the artists on both sides of the war is much less clear, hence this post.
I really tried not to point fingers here (which is why I went with historical examples and not modern ones) but rather to give an understanding of the mental gymnastics that goes on in my head every time I approach this issue.
When I was younger, I used to scorn musicians who cancelled tours in countries with whose actions they disagreed, boycotting them. To me art was a conduit for expressing ideas. Their decision rendered their art a mere product, not unlike gas or bread, with the deprivation of which they as if wanted to starve the enemy, instead of using the literal stage they were given in order to speak out, express, come into a conversation.
Reflecting on it now I see it somewhat differently. Art is not just exchange of ideas but a provided aesthetic experience. Still, and exactly for that, there's a missed opportunity. That's what's great in art: by virtue of its appeal it is carried over space and generations, it attracts, reaching the people that need its message. A sugar coated pill.
A year or two ago a band I love, Igorrr, gave a concert in Berlin. It had been postponed multiple times, for months, years, due to covid, and by the time the band showed up it was no longer the band I bought the ticket for; their two vocalists had been let off because they were anti vaxxers. I was terribly disappointed. The substitutes sang well, but not as well as Laure Le Prunenec. I didn't give a fig if she had gotten vaccinated or not, I wanted to see and hear her sing! What if she expressed support for a repugnant political agenda? I think I'd have gone still.
My line would have been drawn there, at least, where she not just talked but personally did the abhorrable, like Alice Sebold (about whom I've written but not yet published) who had not just not so innocently put an innocent man in prison for decades (and wrote a book about it), but didn't have the dignity to make a proper apology when he was finally exonerated.
My father has expressed the exact sentiment recently, about not wanting to hand a cent to the Russians. Our discussion was about the Russian translation of some work. I didn't argue very long with him, but I was of a different opinion. I understand the bit about the taxes, but to me it's a bit like throwing the baby with the water (and in some way related to the "collective guilt" you alluded to, but I'll put it aside). Naturally books will not translate themselves. I can't remember what novel this was about, even less so who the translator was, but I think it's likely that the translator was one of those who do not support the regime or the war, and, moreover, I think that translation of literary works is one way by which ideas can penetrate into the Russian public and enrich the Putin propaganda diet. I say it tentatively, I'm not completely sure, but especially since Russia is already pretty well embargoed, I don't think the diminished taxation would really do much to their ammunition stocks, but the removed demand for such works will do something to their cultural life, and therefore to the character of the nation, and that not for the better.
@vanyabagaev Vanya Bagaev alluded to cancel culture, saying that it was different albeit related, but I think it's essentially the same phenomenon: making discourse contingent. You did so and so or used the wrong words and therefore an exchange between you and me, the opportunity to persuade and be persuaded, to understand, to teach, explain, is out of the picture. It reminds me Netanyahu's "we (Israel) will not negotiate with terrorists" (that's from decades ago). Oh really, mister prime minister, with whom are you going to negotiate then, with your friends?
I might be playing the devil's advocate here; I don't know your previously admired now zedded artists, but perhaps they're not as devious as they may appear to be.
I too don't think that during the Third Reich most Germans were nazis, or even particularly antisemitic, necessarily. Or that the majority of Russians today are big fans of Mr. Putin. But the state has a power that individuals do not. It's a coordination problem. You can never look into the hearts of your fellow women and men, and might believe that your insubordinate sentiments are uncommon. We use discourse to find such things out, but at an atmosphere where you get arrested on the street because your clothing paired together the wrong colours, it's not easy, to put it mildly.
I always think of that last speech of Ceaușescu, where everything crumbled down for him. One day he's the supreme leader of the country, the next day he and his wife are butchered like dogs. Naturally it wasn't that the speech was that bad, it merely served as the catalyst to show everyone that the king was naked.
The point is that perhaps those fallen artists of yours simply pay lip service to the authority. They should be liable to what they say outside their work, sure, but when it comes to regarding the work, I'd, like you said, view it for what it is. Gogol was allegedly antisemitic, but this did not reflect in his work (at least I don't remember noticing or minding), and I do not promote antisemitism by enjoying his work. Neither would I promote it very much even if he was still alive and I paid for his work and sang its praise. That we tend to idolize great artists (and their opinion) makes it more complicated, but I'll leave it at that.
If we refuse to come into discourse with a person because of their expressed opinions (cancelling them, as it were), we deny ourselves the opportunity to change their minds, sure. But experiencing the art of others is nowadays mostly a one way conversation, they do not hear us back (unless we make internet about it). Still, we do not experience art in a complete vacuum. If we both listened to the same band, saw the same movie, read the same book, WE could come into a dialog about it and if you share the opinions of the artists, I could debate you.
There's a lot of talk about polarized culture and a tendency to think of people as entrenched in their opinions. It might be that online discourse is not particularly suitable for changing people's minds, but at the very least offline interaction is. I recall a house party where my ear caught a couple of persons next to me discussing something I cared about. I had met the guy for the first time that evening and spoke with the gal for the first time when I injected myself into their conversation. They disagreed over the topic of nudity. The guy was in some sports club where the team showered together after practice, the gal spoke against the implicit requirement to be naked before others if you didn't want to do it (but still wanted to participate in the sport). I'm a big proponent of FKK (naturism/ nudism) and essentially took the side of the guy (who in the meanwhile would disappear). By the end of the conversation she agreed with me. Nudity seems to be immaterial in this post's context of wars, but it could have really been any topic.
I recall now too that something similar happened to me another time with a covid conspiracy theorist, a person with whom I spoke for the first time. Instead of telling him ‘you crazy idiot!!!’ like one might, I asked him questions to understand what grounds his opinions stood on. The Socratic method, if you will. It ended up with him raising a question that doubted his original stance.
Also, I'm disappointed by the click-baity title!! I've been curious to read Mein Kampf for a while. As there's a list of books I'm more eager to read that I'll probably nevertheless never read, I'll probably remain merely curious. Boo.
Amazing comment, thank you! This discussion is exactly why I wrote this post in the first place.
I am not sure it's the same as cancel culture. CC feels like pack mentality; I tried to write about ways that I try to deal with the problem on a deeply individual level. I will never urge anyone to stop listening to someone specific because of my own moral qualms.
The tax thing, I think, is more important for me. I understand that the individuals who translate/write books/music, etc. may not be zetnicks, or may not even support the system vocally, but they do support the system by creating within it. This is their personal choice; I can even respect it in some cases. But not giving them (and through them - to the state) money, at least for the duration of the war, is my personal choice here. There are many artists who left, sacrificed something, lost huge audiences and financial opportunities. I have a limited amount of money, and I prefer to support their choice.
I don't refuse to talk with anyone here, quite the opposite, I am ready to talk to people who support modern Russia, or Hamas, or Nazis, and even try to do it without popping a vein :)
I guess I was rather thinking of my father's example with the translation than yours with the musicians, which might or might not make a difference.
For some people it is easier to immigrate than to others, for some of which it might be an inconceivable idea. Of course those that remain, not having vanished, support the system by virtue of being alive there.
I guess as I see it, while one way in which the war could end is for the Russian ammunition (or young lads) to run out, another is through a political change. The former could be accelerated by economical pressure, the latter by cultural shifts. I'm not too hopeful about such a prospect, and neither are the Russians, I think. It seems more likely that first Putin would have to be gone —thankfully all men are mortals— but then again, whatever would happen next would depend on the cultural/ social/ political situation.
I don't know. Perhaps if your once beloved musicians indeed flaunt the Z banner, it makes sense not to rally around it. But if what they do is good you could still listen to it discretely and without landing financial support, unless their otherwise expressed political ideas mars the experience for you.
I look at it from a more selfish perspective. I know that no single person's contribution will make a significant difference either way, definitely not mine. But when I consider a choice: 1) Not listen/read/etc... 2) Pirate it and 3) buy it and know that my money will partially go to the Russian state, I decide between 1 and 2, and that somehow works better for my conscience right now.
That's a great question. Many writers of the past would probably fit into that category: Tolstoy was a deep chauvinist (and it shows in his writing), Gogol and Dostoyevski were antisemitic, etc... But I don't think these views were ever the focus or the main purpose of their writings. Well, maybe "The Kreutzer Sonata" for Tolstoy... Wagner is another classic example, but again, his proto-fascism is not, strictly speaking, the focus of his operas.
I have a love-hate relationship with "The Twelve Chairs" by Ilf and Petrov, an effortlessly charming and funny conman story, but the conman and his sidfekick are both despicable, morally bankrupt characters and their victims are shown in an even worse light than they. I have a problem with this on a moral level.
I think "The Wasp Factory" by Iain Banks can be considered a decent answer, it is written to disturb the reader, and excels at that, but I generally don't agree with this writing philosophy.
And I guess the other part of this is the reality that, once you go back sufficiently far in time, you're just dealing with a different moral landscape. That Plato, for instance, is in some sense the product of a society, a Weltanschauung with very different assumptions (and a city with very different material conditions) than our own.
Yes, this is a strange time-mellowing effect, but I think it is absolutely necessary for us to enjoy art that was created by people who lived in completely different moral conditions than ours. So it might be an evolutionary thing.
“Most people who continue to live in Israel or USA are not supporters of mass displacement and disproportionate force. Heck, I would probably assume that a large number of people who lived in USA or Israel were opposed. But they are collaborationists by denial of reality, by inaction—how can we judge them, and how can we not judge them? How can we access their works of art without contributing to this silent support of the regime?”
Answer: unless you are a minority, whether by race or religion, History’s punishment for breaking the bonds of common humanity is irrelevance. The Christians will write Israel’s history for this era, and the Muslims will write American history for this era. But the scientists and corporatists will survive—we still use IBM, Adidas, and VW. But if you want everlasting soul, you cannot remain in a place that has become immoral.
This analogy is imprecise. Both Israel and USA are democratic states in which people have a direct effect on the government. We know quite well how many people are opposed and how many support the current government.
The word "disproportional" implies that you know what is proportional. Can you share?
Of course you can. Or, to be precise, you can blame them for completely different things.
Likud (together with the army) was operating under the concept that if they build a wall and throw enough money at Hamas, eventually they will pacify. This concept, mind you, works fine in PA (knock on wood). In Hamas' case, that was a huge mistake; it cost thousands of lives, and the initiators of this concept will pay for it: the generals will be fired, and the politicians voted out. Some of them, possibly, will do time for negligence.
Hamas broke into Israel's territory and murdered, raped, and kidnapped. Then they hid in the middle of one of the world's most densely populated cities and started to launch rockets from there. We can see the consequences. They are atrocious for everyone involved.
These two things are historically linked, but they are not welded together. With different Hamas leaders, Likud's (Bibi's, rather) idea might have worked. With no money from Israel, Hamas would have probably done the same thing eventually.
Both are to blame, but these are different types of blame.
I disagree. How is that even Ireland made peace with the IRA and every other American military satellite—whether Singapore or Kuwait—has not needed to invade its neighbors? The only answer from Likud’s viewpoint is Arab inferiority—a curious conclusion, given genetic, linguistic, and cultural overlaps. But the real answer is that Israel has allowed itself to become a weapons testing ground for larger countries while failing to develop effective civilian leadership.
Not Ireland, strictly speaking, UK - they did exactly the same thing, threw money at IRA until it stuck. This strategy is reasonable, it just failed catastrophically this time.
Singapore, Kuwait and Israel all have completely different historical, financial, and even cultural circumstances. Children of Malaysia are not taught to hate Singapore in elementary school, and the same is true for children of Saudi Arabia. Making a direct analogy is tricky here. In fact, analogical thinking is problematic in the case of Israel in general, because the situation is completely unique.
>>>>The only answer from Likud’s viewpoint is Arab inferiority
This could have only been said by an American :) This is a very US-based lens. I don't think it's necessarily untrue, but it is definitely not "the only answer", and it is very rarely a true motivation for political action in Israel. Most enmity towards Arabs in Israel, as far as I can tell from living there for more than 25 years, stems not from "Arabs are inferior to Jews" (this point of view is marginal and considered weird), but from "Arabs want to kill us all", which, frankly, is rarely contradicted by our neighbors.
This can be easily shown by the difference in treatment of Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Arabs. The latter do often participate in terror attacks, unfortunately, but much rarer and with less severe ramifications (think more "school shootings in US", rather than "daily barrages of rockets").
>>>> failing to develop effective civilian leadership
Israel isn’t special—it’s another American imperial outpost that gets rewarded for aligning with the USD. It’s special only in the sense that it’s the only such outpost that has totally failed in getting along with its neighbors except when USA pays them off (Egypt, Jordan).
You try to differentiate Israel’s failure, but every country’s textbooks, if honest, malign occupiers or opposing splinter groups. In Malaysia, they are taught to hate the Japanese. In KSA, they are taught to be suspicious of Shias and Bahai. In Belfast, they were taught to hate Catholics. Only Israel is so special that it has to invade its neighbors again and again?
Re: Arab inferiority, listen to Likud and others. Ben-Gvir is a good start.
Time and distance are almost always ...it's easier with them. Everything can be understood, to a degree. Everything can be fascinating. Everything is a thread in some huge tapestry.
Place also plays a role-the more far removed, at least in our mind-the better. "better".
we're tourists, not emigrees, in history
So waiting is good, I agree.
I need to think more, -thank you for the essay
Yes, living far away from it all helps to a degree. But it is still a question that bothers me.
I am reading some of the memoirs of people from German Resistance and other people living in Germany through the Nazi regime, and they had similar issues.
no, I meant something else, I'm sorry for being confusing
didn't mean where one lives at the time of, while being affected....I meant something that happenned in the past, maybe very distant past-AND faraway from where we mentally place ourselves more or less.
It really needs to be brought to us brilliantly via something, to register for what it was, for what it was for the living back then and there.
Oh sorry, I misunderstood. Yeah, I agree, this helps.
In the Punic Wars (Rome won), who was the good guy? Are you allowed to like Hannibal's elephants, do you have to slaughter Nero's geese?
Yeah, but Hannibal didn't aim to murder my relatives though. Probably not even ancestors.
You want to be the good guy today and are looking for a recipe? Why did Hesse let Joseph Knecht die? Who was better: Narcissus or Goldmund?
You know what, I understand Hesse's genius, but by God, he was such a bore. Maybe it's the Russian translation, though.
Steppenwolf took him for Born to be Wild & the bandname, was too boring for young americans on harleys
Nutten, Gruppensex, Kokainparties, Maschinengewehrfeuer gegen Autofahrer, Jazz, Karneval, Halluzinatorische Träume...
Hesse hat im Wald bei Veganern gelebt, bei Nudisten, war Tramp in den Alpen, hat als Pazifist demonstriert - er war Hippie 50 Jahre vor den Hippie. Nur über Kotze & Scheiße hat er nicht geschrieben - Schwächling
Oh, I see, I hit a nerve.
Hey, I have nothing agains Hesse. He was ahead of his time and still is very much liked. I just didn't connect with him, and not because of a lack of shit and vomit.
Steppenwolf is more fun, true.
Ein gewisser Balzac soll in "Verlorene Illusionen" auch im ersten ⅓ das Stilmittel der Langeweile in der Provinz eingesetzt haben, bevor es in Paris (+ Glanz & Elend + Vater Goriot) dann spannend wurde. Oder Thomas Mann in Mario & der Zauberer. Und alles ohne bunte Bilder, Raumschiffe & Hexen. Einfach irre. Культура...
Übrigens, das Henkershaus & der Kerker, wo die Kindsmörderin aus Meister & Marg. einsaß und hingerichtet wurde, ist gleich hinter unserer Küche. Aber was wusste dieser Bulgakow schon.
Denken ist Scheiße
What do you leave behind on Solaris' planet? And now the fucking answer to your question: What is the planet sending you? (from which you want to hide, by the wayside)
Yep, Lem's metaphor still goes strong. He certainly thought about similar things when hewrote Solaris.
And what did you swap tonight: you sent him Rodin's Thinker and he sent you a teddy bear?
Just an eggplant emoji.
By the way, if you make the wrong decision, you can always start an in-depth philosophical discussion about the freedom of the will. At Shashlyk & Vodka
I sure can and do!
That was a good and important rambling. I don’t have answers either but it’s calming to know that someone has similar feelings. I would sat It’s more of an individual approach to every artist…
And thank you for mentioning my essay 🫂
It is individual, sure. It should be, rationally. But emotionally, I am looking for a one-size-fits-all solution.
We have an ongoing masochistic game among ourselves, debating who of our favorite but already dead artists would zed out. My money is on Letov, even though I do like him very much.
I have a habit to check if someone zedded before listening to their songs etc haha It feels weird but at the end of the day it’s just an extra filter- I cannot help but not to feel uncomfortable. And I think it’s different to cancel culture, although they may seem related. And it’s not internal censorship, it’s something else- like “You betrayed me, I don’t want to deal with you anymore” kinda vibe. But personally I didn’t have a strong cases of that (yet)- most of my fav Russian artists (there aren’t many of them) happened to be quite anti-gov.
Yes, luckily, there were relatively few huge disappointments (Picnic one of them). If ten years ago I was asked who would nazify if push comes to shove, I would probably be 70-75 percent correct.
There were a few pleasant surprises even.
I am always very skeptical of people who disparage artists or anyone because they do not conform to their point of view. Morality in general is easy to manipulate.
Nazis honestly felt that consuming anything Jewish was immoral.
A beloved relative of mine who was Christian in a fundamentalist way sent me a list in the 80s of artists and musicians that I should not read because they were gay and therefore some of their homosexual ideology may be transported in their works -- the list included Elton John and Shakespeare.
Now even if I agree with the people who are pointing fingers I don’t listen.
I think I know what you mean, and I agree. Especially in the age of social networks, talking about morality is dangerous.
But yet again, there is a war going on, and I have a very clear stance on it. But my stance on the artists on both sides of the war is much less clear, hence this post.
I really tried not to point fingers here (which is why I went with historical examples and not modern ones) but rather to give an understanding of the mental gymnastics that goes on in my head every time I approach this issue.
Sorry you gave to go through mental gymnastics! Take care!
Yeah, it's supposed to be healthy if one's careful :)
Thanks!
When I was younger, I used to scorn musicians who cancelled tours in countries with whose actions they disagreed, boycotting them. To me art was a conduit for expressing ideas. Their decision rendered their art a mere product, not unlike gas or bread, with the deprivation of which they as if wanted to starve the enemy, instead of using the literal stage they were given in order to speak out, express, come into a conversation.
Reflecting on it now I see it somewhat differently. Art is not just exchange of ideas but a provided aesthetic experience. Still, and exactly for that, there's a missed opportunity. That's what's great in art: by virtue of its appeal it is carried over space and generations, it attracts, reaching the people that need its message. A sugar coated pill.
A year or two ago a band I love, Igorrr, gave a concert in Berlin. It had been postponed multiple times, for months, years, due to covid, and by the time the band showed up it was no longer the band I bought the ticket for; their two vocalists had been let off because they were anti vaxxers. I was terribly disappointed. The substitutes sang well, but not as well as Laure Le Prunenec. I didn't give a fig if she had gotten vaccinated or not, I wanted to see and hear her sing! What if she expressed support for a repugnant political agenda? I think I'd have gone still.
My line would have been drawn there, at least, where she not just talked but personally did the abhorrable, like Alice Sebold (about whom I've written but not yet published) who had not just not so innocently put an innocent man in prison for decades (and wrote a book about it), but didn't have the dignity to make a proper apology when he was finally exonerated.
My father has expressed the exact sentiment recently, about not wanting to hand a cent to the Russians. Our discussion was about the Russian translation of some work. I didn't argue very long with him, but I was of a different opinion. I understand the bit about the taxes, but to me it's a bit like throwing the baby with the water (and in some way related to the "collective guilt" you alluded to, but I'll put it aside). Naturally books will not translate themselves. I can't remember what novel this was about, even less so who the translator was, but I think it's likely that the translator was one of those who do not support the regime or the war, and, moreover, I think that translation of literary works is one way by which ideas can penetrate into the Russian public and enrich the Putin propaganda diet. I say it tentatively, I'm not completely sure, but especially since Russia is already pretty well embargoed, I don't think the diminished taxation would really do much to their ammunition stocks, but the removed demand for such works will do something to their cultural life, and therefore to the character of the nation, and that not for the better.
@vanyabagaev Vanya Bagaev alluded to cancel culture, saying that it was different albeit related, but I think it's essentially the same phenomenon: making discourse contingent. You did so and so or used the wrong words and therefore an exchange between you and me, the opportunity to persuade and be persuaded, to understand, to teach, explain, is out of the picture. It reminds me Netanyahu's "we (Israel) will not negotiate with terrorists" (that's from decades ago). Oh really, mister prime minister, with whom are you going to negotiate then, with your friends?
I might be playing the devil's advocate here; I don't know your previously admired now zedded artists, but perhaps they're not as devious as they may appear to be.
I too don't think that during the Third Reich most Germans were nazis, or even particularly antisemitic, necessarily. Or that the majority of Russians today are big fans of Mr. Putin. But the state has a power that individuals do not. It's a coordination problem. You can never look into the hearts of your fellow women and men, and might believe that your insubordinate sentiments are uncommon. We use discourse to find such things out, but at an atmosphere where you get arrested on the street because your clothing paired together the wrong colours, it's not easy, to put it mildly.
I always think of that last speech of Ceaușescu, where everything crumbled down for him. One day he's the supreme leader of the country, the next day he and his wife are butchered like dogs. Naturally it wasn't that the speech was that bad, it merely served as the catalyst to show everyone that the king was naked.
The point is that perhaps those fallen artists of yours simply pay lip service to the authority. They should be liable to what they say outside their work, sure, but when it comes to regarding the work, I'd, like you said, view it for what it is. Gogol was allegedly antisemitic, but this did not reflect in his work (at least I don't remember noticing or minding), and I do not promote antisemitism by enjoying his work. Neither would I promote it very much even if he was still alive and I paid for his work and sang its praise. That we tend to idolize great artists (and their opinion) makes it more complicated, but I'll leave it at that.
If we refuse to come into discourse with a person because of their expressed opinions (cancelling them, as it were), we deny ourselves the opportunity to change their minds, sure. But experiencing the art of others is nowadays mostly a one way conversation, they do not hear us back (unless we make internet about it). Still, we do not experience art in a complete vacuum. If we both listened to the same band, saw the same movie, read the same book, WE could come into a dialog about it and if you share the opinions of the artists, I could debate you.
There's a lot of talk about polarized culture and a tendency to think of people as entrenched in their opinions. It might be that online discourse is not particularly suitable for changing people's minds, but at the very least offline interaction is. I recall a house party where my ear caught a couple of persons next to me discussing something I cared about. I had met the guy for the first time that evening and spoke with the gal for the first time when I injected myself into their conversation. They disagreed over the topic of nudity. The guy was in some sports club where the team showered together after practice, the gal spoke against the implicit requirement to be naked before others if you didn't want to do it (but still wanted to participate in the sport). I'm a big proponent of FKK (naturism/ nudism) and essentially took the side of the guy (who in the meanwhile would disappear). By the end of the conversation she agreed with me. Nudity seems to be immaterial in this post's context of wars, but it could have really been any topic.
I recall now too that something similar happened to me another time with a covid conspiracy theorist, a person with whom I spoke for the first time. Instead of telling him ‘you crazy idiot!!!’ like one might, I asked him questions to understand what grounds his opinions stood on. The Socratic method, if you will. It ended up with him raising a question that doubted his original stance.
Also, I'm disappointed by the click-baity title!! I've been curious to read Mein Kampf for a while. As there's a list of books I'm more eager to read that I'll probably nevertheless never read, I'll probably remain merely curious. Boo.
Amazing comment, thank you! This discussion is exactly why I wrote this post in the first place.
I am not sure it's the same as cancel culture. CC feels like pack mentality; I tried to write about ways that I try to deal with the problem on a deeply individual level. I will never urge anyone to stop listening to someone specific because of my own moral qualms.
The tax thing, I think, is more important for me. I understand that the individuals who translate/write books/music, etc. may not be zetnicks, or may not even support the system vocally, but they do support the system by creating within it. This is their personal choice; I can even respect it in some cases. But not giving them (and through them - to the state) money, at least for the duration of the war, is my personal choice here. There are many artists who left, sacrificed something, lost huge audiences and financial opportunities. I have a limited amount of money, and I prefer to support their choice.
I don't refuse to talk with anyone here, quite the opposite, I am ready to talk to people who support modern Russia, or Hamas, or Nazis, and even try to do it without popping a vein :)
I think this essay by Etgar Keret is very timely here: https://etgarkeret.substack.com/p/so-you-think-you-can-tell
Gogol was pretty antisemitic in Taras Bulba, overtly so even. Still a genius.
I really liked whatever I heard by Igorrr. Shame they have internal turbulence.
I guess I was rather thinking of my father's example with the translation than yours with the musicians, which might or might not make a difference.
For some people it is easier to immigrate than to others, for some of which it might be an inconceivable idea. Of course those that remain, not having vanished, support the system by virtue of being alive there.
I guess as I see it, while one way in which the war could end is for the Russian ammunition (or young lads) to run out, another is through a political change. The former could be accelerated by economical pressure, the latter by cultural shifts. I'm not too hopeful about such a prospect, and neither are the Russians, I think. It seems more likely that first Putin would have to be gone —thankfully all men are mortals— but then again, whatever would happen next would depend on the cultural/ social/ political situation.
I don't know. Perhaps if your once beloved musicians indeed flaunt the Z banner, it makes sense not to rally around it. But if what they do is good you could still listen to it discretely and without landing financial support, unless their otherwise expressed political ideas mars the experience for you.
I look at it from a more selfish perspective. I know that no single person's contribution will make a significant difference either way, definitely not mine. But when I consider a choice: 1) Not listen/read/etc... 2) Pirate it and 3) buy it and know that my money will partially go to the Russian state, I decide between 1 and 2, and that somehow works better for my conscience right now.
It is mostly 1, though.
Can you think of a work that strikes you as both a great work of art and one that expresses an ideology you deeply disagree with?
That's a great question. Many writers of the past would probably fit into that category: Tolstoy was a deep chauvinist (and it shows in his writing), Gogol and Dostoyevski were antisemitic, etc... But I don't think these views were ever the focus or the main purpose of their writings. Well, maybe "The Kreutzer Sonata" for Tolstoy... Wagner is another classic example, but again, his proto-fascism is not, strictly speaking, the focus of his operas.
I have a love-hate relationship with "The Twelve Chairs" by Ilf and Petrov, an effortlessly charming and funny conman story, but the conman and his sidfekick are both despicable, morally bankrupt characters and their victims are shown in an even worse light than they. I have a problem with this on a moral level.
I think "The Wasp Factory" by Iain Banks can be considered a decent answer, it is written to disturb the reader, and excels at that, but I generally don't agree with this writing philosophy.
What about you?
Yukio Mishima.
Good answer.
And I guess the other part of this is the reality that, once you go back sufficiently far in time, you're just dealing with a different moral landscape. That Plato, for instance, is in some sense the product of a society, a Weltanschauung with very different assumptions (and a city with very different material conditions) than our own.
Yes, this is a strange time-mellowing effect, but I think it is absolutely necessary for us to enjoy art that was created by people who lived in completely different moral conditions than ours. So it might be an evolutionary thing.
No one, for instance, talks about the Parthenon as problematic, even though it was built with slave labor.
Try this:
“Most people who continue to live in Israel or USA are not supporters of mass displacement and disproportionate force. Heck, I would probably assume that a large number of people who lived in USA or Israel were opposed. But they are collaborationists by denial of reality, by inaction—how can we judge them, and how can we not judge them? How can we access their works of art without contributing to this silent support of the regime?”
Answer: unless you are a minority, whether by race or religion, History’s punishment for breaking the bonds of common humanity is irrelevance. The Christians will write Israel’s history for this era, and the Muslims will write American history for this era. But the scientists and corporatists will survive—we still use IBM, Adidas, and VW. But if you want everlasting soul, you cannot remain in a place that has become immoral.
This analogy is imprecise. Both Israel and USA are democratic states in which people have a direct effect on the government. We know quite well how many people are opposed and how many support the current government.
The word "disproportional" implies that you know what is proportional. Can you share?
The second part is bullshit, sorry.
Ok. But you cannot blame Hamas without blaming Likud. That much is certain. Check out Haaertz reporting, including the following headline from 2020:
“Mossad Chief Visited Doha, Urged Qatar to Continue Hamas Financial Aid;
Israeli visit disclosed by Avigdor Lieberman, who says Mossad chief and Israeli military commander were sent on the mission by Netanyahu”
>>>> you cannot blame Hamas without blaming Likud
Of course you can. Or, to be precise, you can blame them for completely different things.
Likud (together with the army) was operating under the concept that if they build a wall and throw enough money at Hamas, eventually they will pacify. This concept, mind you, works fine in PA (knock on wood). In Hamas' case, that was a huge mistake; it cost thousands of lives, and the initiators of this concept will pay for it: the generals will be fired, and the politicians voted out. Some of them, possibly, will do time for negligence.
Hamas broke into Israel's territory and murdered, raped, and kidnapped. Then they hid in the middle of one of the world's most densely populated cities and started to launch rockets from there. We can see the consequences. They are atrocious for everyone involved.
These two things are historically linked, but they are not welded together. With different Hamas leaders, Likud's (Bibi's, rather) idea might have worked. With no money from Israel, Hamas would have probably done the same thing eventually.
Both are to blame, but these are different types of blame.
I disagree. How is that even Ireland made peace with the IRA and every other American military satellite—whether Singapore or Kuwait—has not needed to invade its neighbors? The only answer from Likud’s viewpoint is Arab inferiority—a curious conclusion, given genetic, linguistic, and cultural overlaps. But the real answer is that Israel has allowed itself to become a weapons testing ground for larger countries while failing to develop effective civilian leadership.
Not Ireland, strictly speaking, UK - they did exactly the same thing, threw money at IRA until it stuck. This strategy is reasonable, it just failed catastrophically this time.
Singapore, Kuwait and Israel all have completely different historical, financial, and even cultural circumstances. Children of Malaysia are not taught to hate Singapore in elementary school, and the same is true for children of Saudi Arabia. Making a direct analogy is tricky here. In fact, analogical thinking is problematic in the case of Israel in general, because the situation is completely unique.
>>>>The only answer from Likud’s viewpoint is Arab inferiority
This could have only been said by an American :) This is a very US-based lens. I don't think it's necessarily untrue, but it is definitely not "the only answer", and it is very rarely a true motivation for political action in Israel. Most enmity towards Arabs in Israel, as far as I can tell from living there for more than 25 years, stems not from "Arabs are inferior to Jews" (this point of view is marginal and considered weird), but from "Arabs want to kill us all", which, frankly, is rarely contradicted by our neighbors.
This can be easily shown by the difference in treatment of Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Arabs. The latter do often participate in terror attacks, unfortunately, but much rarer and with less severe ramifications (think more "school shootings in US", rather than "daily barrages of rockets").
>>>> failing to develop effective civilian leadership
That, alas, is much closer to the truth.
Israel isn’t special—it’s another American imperial outpost that gets rewarded for aligning with the USD. It’s special only in the sense that it’s the only such outpost that has totally failed in getting along with its neighbors except when USA pays them off (Egypt, Jordan).
You try to differentiate Israel’s failure, but every country’s textbooks, if honest, malign occupiers or opposing splinter groups. In Malaysia, they are taught to hate the Japanese. In KSA, they are taught to be suspicious of Shias and Bahai. In Belfast, they were taught to hate Catholics. Only Israel is so special that it has to invade its neighbors again and again?
Re: Arab inferiority, listen to Likud and others. Ben-Gvir is a good start.