Crimes against Culture

A place to talk

Moderator: Moderators

Crimes against Culture

Postby mudokon100 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:03 pm

I've been listening to Radio 1 (the UKs national station) a little too much lately, and have heard some gods awful stuff that frankly should never have even been comtemplated. So, who here knows of some of these "crimes"? I'd like to see what the worst of the worst is, without getting too erm... "dirty", if you know what I mean.

My horrendous "hits" would have to be the following songs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erIs98Z5 ... re=related "I love College" by one Asher Roth. A person who I deem should be punished with large metal spikes for this monstrous creation. What in all the hells was he thinking?
The is no lyric variation. Said lyrics are actually stated sentences, so there is no "singing" as far as I can hear. The content of the speech (because frankly that's all it is, to a beat), is questionable at best - he seems to be promoting destroying your body on a daily basis as a good thing, as well as "singing" about things that aren't exactly stuff you'd want to be thinking about while relaxing to music. Gods only know how this one came to be worthy of playing on air.

My second entry is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9XA5Xb-ALk "Foundations" by Kate Nash. Now, I may be a little biased because I have hated this woman since I first heard her. But frankly I can sum this song up in one word - "Eurgh". The lyrics are horrible. The way the lyrics are "sung" is horrible (because it almost qualifies for the same reason as my above entry). Apparently the song is from the album Made of Bricks. And we all know what "Brick" is a metaphor for...

Side note: Excuse my poor grammar if "metaphor" is the wrong word there, but I'm sure you get what I'm meaning ^^

Also note that this challenge encompasses anything "Cultural" - art, music, architecture, film... whatever really.
Checker: Are you human?
Me: Of course I am!
Checker: *DENIED*
Me: What? Well... how about "Yes"?
Checker: *ACCEPTED*
Me: O.o
User avatar
mudokon100
Hive Tyrant
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:46 pm
Location: Stuck to the ceiling above you...

Re: Crimes against Culture

Postby Harpu on Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:30 am

As a fellow artist, I just can't fathom any piece of art being a crime against culture. So long as the person who created the work enjoys it, any argument about it is merely opinion. The only thing that can be considered a crime against culture would be something that attacks a culture or persons, anything designed to incite hate or demean.

I agree with you about the first song, I don't really care for it at all. Still, it's not a crime against culture. Read the comments in the video, many people like it. Also, this guys beat is stolen, so if you are wondering how he could produce crap like that and make money, don't worry. ;) His beat is taken and slightly modified from Weezer's song Say It Ain't So (good song imo)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU7LZts87Zg

Same with the second link for kate. I don't like her at all too but it still is not a crime against culture.

I don't want to sound like I ragged on the main topic, which is a very interesting one. To everyone, keep any possible conversations about real crimes against cultures calm and friendly, especially since things that fit this topic could and are meant to be offensive to people/religion/culture etc, etc.

Personally, I think this is a really good and definetely interesting topic to talk about so I don't feel that it should be locked. I don't know about the other mods though. So feel free to post anything that actually fits the bill everyone.
User avatar
Harpu
Moderator
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Crimes against Culture

Postby mudokon100 on Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:04 am

Oh, do forgive me if I gave across the message I wanted to see stuff like that, I did mean it was down to opinion. Obviously there's gonna be some strange person (or people) out there that likes what every else doesn't, so this is more about things that you personally believe should never have been created, and hope and/or expect others to agree.
There's no call for being offensive and passing it off as "culture", that's just plain rude ^^

As for your comments on the songs themselves: Glad you agree :D And yes, the weezer version sounds oh so much better, even though it's not to my taste.
Checker: Are you human?
Me: Of course I am!
Checker: *DENIED*
Me: What? Well... how about "Yes"?
Checker: *ACCEPTED*
Me: O.o
User avatar
mudokon100
Hive Tyrant
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:46 pm
Location: Stuck to the ceiling above you...

Re: Crimes against Culture

Postby Daz on Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:19 am

Well Mudo i wholeheartedly agree with your resentment of Kate Nash, she uses "Estuary English" (Not actually proper english) in her lyrics and I despise how poorly her lyrics are linked together in the song, e.g "I'd rather be WID your friends made because they are much fittER." Arrghghg <Insert Angry smilie>
Fethin hell, you whippersnappers know where my car is parked?
User avatar
Daz
Gaunt
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:04 pm

Re: Crimes against Culture

Postby Jazzey on Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:30 pm

What makes it worse imo for Kate Nash is that she's from a rich backround, yet 'sings' like a chav.
User avatar
Jazzey
Spore Mine
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:15 am

Re: Crimes against Culture

Postby Daz on Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:36 pm

Jazzey wrote:What makes it worse imo for Kate Nash is that she's from a rich backround, yet 'sings' like a chav.


Really??? Hahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahhaha.

She's not even that fit. ;)
Fethin hell, you whippersnappers know where my car is parked?
User avatar
Daz
Gaunt
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:04 pm

Re: Crimes against Culture

Postby Taleri on Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:13 am

mudokon100 wrote:so this is more about things that you personally believe should never have been created, and hope and/or expect others to agree.


Thats easy. This still pisses me off to the extent that I want the artist to have his "exhibit" recreated with *him* as the subject. I'll link to the snopes article in an attempt to be as fair as posssible (and also to avoid showing all the graphic photos). However, whatever the "artist's" motivation, it was still a sick sick thing to do. I don't consider this "art" or even "raising awareness" but outright cruelty.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp

Harpu wrote:So long as the person who created the work enjoys it, any argument about it is merely opinion. The only thing that can be considered a crime against culture would be something that attacks a culture or persons, anything designed to incite hate or demean.


I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you here. Some people (such as above) will do horrendous things in the name of "art." While the artist may like his own work, I don't think that it should give him a free pass to do whatever he feels like doing.
Taleri
Gaunt
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:14 am

Re: Crimes against Culture

Postby Harpu on Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:34 pm

That is a really good example you found there. It would be difficult for me not to change my opinion but the story hasn't been fully hashed out, and is undetermined according to snopes. Snopes is really credible but a story like this would have had news coverage at the very least. I can't copy and paste on snopes but heres an interesting paragraph on the snopes page.

"We havn't yet been able to confirm whether the circumstances of the exhibit were as commonly represented, however. The most extreme claims about this exhibit maintain that the dog was continually mistreated, confined in the gallery and denied food and water for several days until it finally starved to death. Other accounts state that the exhibit was deliberately set up so that the dog appeared to be neglected while the gallery was open to the public, but the animal was otherwise properly cared for. Yet other reports (such as an article about the exhibit published in the Nicaraguan newspaper La Prensa) quoted from the gallery's director as asserting that the dog was in fact well-fed, and that it had not died (of starvation or any other cause) but had escaped from the gallery during the night"

But my opinion doesn't change not because of the unconfirmation. But because art is much like America's first ammendment. As we forever move on, new art forms will come that conflict and challenge what we determine to be art. As far as this is concerned though, despite the individuals opinion of what he thinks is art, Animal Cruelty is not a recognized art form, and more than likely will never be recognized as an art form, making it nothing more than this Guillermo guys attempt at producing art.
User avatar
Harpu
Moderator
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Crimes against Culture

Postby Taleri on Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:15 pm

In regards to the paragraph you restated,
Taleri wrote: whatever the "artist's" motivation, it was still a sick sick thing to do.
Even the appearance of starvation for this exhibit is reprehensible. No matter which of the three stories you choose to believe, the dog should never have been put in that position because each option is horrible in its own way.

Harpu wrote:As far as this is concerned though, despite the individuals opinion of what he thinks is art, Animal Cruelty is not a recognized art form, and more than likely will never be recognized as an art form, making it nothing more than this Guillermo guys attempt at producing art.


I don't consider it art either. But the "artist" did and the gallery did, enough to allow it to be an exhibit. Just like how some consider some music to be "noise," its enough that the "artist" produced it for public consumption and the radio stations played it. Both are presented as art by the people who are trusted to judge such things.
Taleri
Gaunt
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:14 am

Re: Crimes against Culture

Postby Harpu on Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:41 pm

Your absolutely right on your paragraph. More than likely, there isn't an art studio in the world that would play host to a dead animal anyway so even though the scene is gruesome, they did accept the exhibit, that much is true. So its more than likely that the dog was well, allowing for such disturbing "art" in the first place. :)
User avatar
Harpu
Moderator
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Philadelphia

Next

Return to Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest