It's not an ad-hominem to say that a comment is pedantic. Maybe Cheerskep is super sensitive because he's in the performing arts where critics are notorious for ad-hominems when they lack insightful prose. And I didn't say the words Cheerskep attributes to me with his quotation marks. Falsely quoting someone is at least an ad-hominem, but I know Cheerskep wouldn't waste time doing that and I accept that he was just inaccurate in remembering my words. So I'm not offended by his remarks, even if makes them up for me. Also, If he wants to defend Debord, I really wish he would. I can't find anything in Debord to like or learn from. Why is it such a big deal to say that society imagines itself with dehumanizing signs and commodities? Is there any society worthy of the name that has not done that? I'm not saying Debord is wrong but in his critique but if all human conditions are faulty why is it intelligent to focus on only some of those faults as if the others are acceptable? Debord's remedy for the degradation of society by the spectacle was communism, as if the replacement of the dehumanizing commodity with the dehumanizing state was any improvement.
I don't have any idea whether or not Hirst would adopt a philosophical language if he were to comment on this list. I suspect he's not so dumb as to not know the difference between philosophical discourse and newspaper talk. Hirst is an artist lots of people love to hate. People who are hated for being famous and rich are usually not as hateful in person as their public profiles suggest. Incidentally, I'm not a fan of Hirst's work. It doesn't excite my feelings. It's not personal expression. He clearly represents the society of the spectacle wherein the authentic identity of a human being (if there is such a thing and I'm not sure there is) is replaced by the commodities and constructs society produces -- not for itself but for the simulacrum. Again, what is the alternative to the corruption of humanity by means of its symbols and economies? It comes down to a matter of power within the corrupting system, some it it predatory and some of it victimized. Hirst is a happy predator, for now. Debord ended up a victim, an alcoholic who shot himself dead. (Now maybe that's an ad-hominem). wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, June 3, 2012 5:53:40 PM Subject: Re: "I think anything done super-well is art." In a message dated 6/3/12 5:17:09 PM, [email protected] writes: > "My sense is that the interview with Hirst is fine. He comes out OK, > pragmatic > and honest. However, Cheerskep..." > Oy. I can hear it coming. "Hirst is a pragmatic and honest man. In contrast, pedantic Cheerskep once again..." But, hey, I get off easy under William's habitual ad hominem indictments. DuBord is "angry, ridiculous, paranoid, gloomy, and stuck with a fixation." > "with his pedantic comment about ontology, Cheerskep once > again asks too much of everyday talk." > This is a philosophy of art forum. The awful truth "ontology" necessarily comes into it. On such a forum I don't feel Hirst has the "prerogative" of asserting that a given effort IS "art". Even in everyday kitchen talk I reject that. In philosophy, it's essential to see the difference something's allegedly "being" evil and just being CALLED "evil", a difference that William tacitly honors when he rejects DuBird's saying capitalism is "evil".
