Censored edition of Huck Finn

John

ArtSmart wrote: »

yes, John, these are exactly the questions that fill up the volumes of academic work in institutions of learning and other places.

Oh, I never knew that. I thought we were covering brand new territory!

there are rules, there are agreed understanding, there is copious amts of work analysing the nature of art. are you really suggesting that no agreed analysis have been put forth - no ground rules, no parameters?

are you really suggesting the adage 'one man's meat is another man's poison?' when it comes to definitions of art?

No but art is meant for the public so what the public thinks has to form part of the greater criticism.

if that were the case, why have academia at all? why not stick Joseph Soap into a discipline and let him enlighten us with his down home insights ?

Because only those with a degree are capable of understanding literature or deciding what art is? Are you an academic yourself? If not, does that mean that as someone with a PhD that my opinions are more valid than yours? (I must stress that my background is not arts, I've kept my art purely extracurricular which means I'm only a lowly Joe Soap incapable of forming thoughts on such weighty issues as "what is art?").

fair enough you found a work on blyton. (even an ignoramus like me expected there to be at least one, damn my arrogance! ands so yes my arrogant challenge has been met - but not for a moment does that mean that blyton's work is considered as art in academia, nor in the public consciousness, not in any world i'm aware of.

And you're aware of everything in academia?

be honest John - does any part of your being actually consider blyton's work equals art?

I said earlier in the thread that I've barely read her work and not since I was maybe 6 or 7. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

if we live in a world were the definition of art is 'whatever yer havin yerself mate' then we live in a world were there is NO definition of art.

If that's all you've gotten from my posts then perhaps I've wasted my type.

ArtSmart

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

The film is the world war two classic "the Dam Busters", based on a true story of a virtually suicidal mission the RAF flew to destroy dams in Germany.

The squadron who flew the mission had a black dog which was called "******", probably a common enough name for black dogs back then, as a mascot.

Afaik, there's currently plans to remake the film and there are plans to change the dogs name to something like "blackie" or somesuch.

I don't think it's a huge issue but if the dog was called "******" he was called "****** and it's silly to pretend otherwise, imo. It's an offensive name but since when is art/history about not offending people?

interesting example.

there's no doubt that the dog is central to the film's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_%28dog%29) subtext. but is that particular name central? I say no.

the idea of 'political correctness' is one understood differently be differnt people.

to me, PC is based on the 'power of naming'.

if we attest that a word has inherent power, that is, that an established word has greater power than a grunt or pointing in the realm of communication, that it possesses a level of power of itself - a power derived through agreed use, then words contain power.

however, the power of a word is subject to agreed understanding of it's users.

certain words like 'craic' may not be directly transferable to other cultures outside of ireland (fun doesnt quite cover it) but within Irish culture it contains a particular power, a power given by it's users and their agreed understanding of it's use.

yes, some may say the word 'craic' has as many meanings as there are people, but if that were true words would be useless as units of language and therefore as a means of communication.

so the word ni****.

does it have power? what is it's power.

some, myself included would suggest that the word ni**** has a power - in this case an oppressive power. it may or may not have had such power in the 1950's but it does now.

so, should such a word - with such power - be given free reign in this instance?

i say no, because the word in this instance - in terms of the subtext of the movie (the friendship between the soldiers/ agents) is not what's important. it's the dog itself which is important - not the name of the dog.
to be 'true to the story' the significance of the dog should be shown, but there is no need to use the name ni**** in this instance to convey that comradeship.

so why change the name at all?

because the word ni**** has a particular power - an oppressive power. so it's use in this instance can been interpreted as oppressive, yet it's non use does not / will not affect the subtext storyline.

marienbad

I suppose one of the differences between Art and entertainment is that Art tries to illuminate what it is to be human and entertainment tries to well ... entertain, That is why I am certain the remake of the Dambusters will have no mention of the word n****r, Similarly the recent remake of The Four Feathers will not use '' an army of woggas'' ( if I remember correctly).

Will that make them less ''art'' than the originals , not that the originals were great art anyway, but yes it will make them less because they are less faithful to the truth.

and before someone hits me with a sledgehammer I am not saying that that is the only definition of art Ok.I am just addressing this PC fetish of retrospectively ''cleaning up'' the past.

ArtSmart

John wrote: »

If that's all you've gotten from my posts then perhaps I've wasted my type.

Hi John. one's type is never wasted.

ArtSmart

marienbad wrote: »

I suppose one of the differences between Art and entertainment is that Art tries to illuminate what it is to be human and entertainment tries to well ... entertain, That is why I am certain the remake of the Dambusters will have no mention of the word n****r, Similarly the recent remake of The Four Feathers will not use '' an army of woggas'' ( if I remember correctly).

Will that make them less ''art'' than the originals , not that the originals were great art anyway, but yes it will make them less because they are less faithful to the truth.

and before someone hits me with a sledgehammer I am not saying that that is the only definition of art Ok.I am just addressing this PC fetish of retrospectively ''cleaning up'' the past.

Lionel Hutz: "there's the 'truth' (shakes head) and there's the 'truth'" (nods)

see above post on dam busters.

marienbad

ArtSmart wrote: »

Lionel Hutz: "there's the 'truth' (shakes head) and there's the 'truth'" (nods)

see above post on dam busters.

Hello Artsmart, I dont think we are in disargement here,

my point is it was acceptable to use that word during the war and still acceptable when the film was made. ''Art'' would use the word still today because it would wish to represent the time correctly.Entertainment has no such concerns, it just wants the widest possible audience.

Same way with Enid . she saw nothing wrong with those words and neither did her audience and any books on her would be more on a sociological line than a literary critisism line. Though some obscure university will prove me wrong and have a course on her,

ArtSmart

marienbad wrote: »

Hello Artsmart, I dont think we are in disargement here,

my point is it was acceptable to use that word during the war and still acceptable when the film was made. ''Art'' would use the word still today because it would wish to represent the time correctly.Entertainment has no such concerns, it just wants the widest possible audience.

Same way with Enid . she saw nothing wrong with those words and neither did her audience and any books on her would be more on a sociological line than a literary critisism line. Though some obscure university will prove me wrong and have a course on her,

well i dont think it's just entertainment, but cool.

so, you single?

marienbad

ArtSmart wrote: »

well i dont think it's just entertainment, but cool.

so, you single?

Do you mean ,am I single ? am I gay ? am I working ?

ArtSmart

marienbad wrote: »

Do you mean ,am I single ? am I gay ? am I working ?

he he. just throwing a little left field into the mix.

('reducing all argument to fundamentals' - forget who said that. - anyway, kiddin)

ps gay? you're female no?

marienbad

ArtSmart wrote: »

he he. just throwing a little left field into the mix.

('reducing all argument to fundamentals' - forget who said that. - anyway, kiddin)

I know , just quoting the movie back at you- coffee tea me ?? is another one

and you are right on the fundamenalists

ArtSmart

marienbad wrote: »

I know , just quoting the movie back at you- coffee tea me ?? is another one

and you are right on the fundamenalists

he he. phew.

you never know, in these crazy PC times...

SuperInfinity

I have now lost every last lingering shred of respect I had for ArtSmart's posts.

ArtSmart

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I have now lost every last lingering shred of respect I had for ArtSmart's posts.

does that mean we can date?


oh, chill out dude. (dudette)

anyway, i promise to keep outta lit for a while. how's zat?

Amazotheamazing

marienbad wrote: »

I suppose one of the differences between Art and entertainment is that Art tries to illuminate what it is to be human and entertainment tries to well ... entertain, That is why I am certain the remake of the Dambusters will have no mention of the word n****r, Similarly the recent remake of The Four Feathers will not use '' an army of woggas'' ( if I remember correctly).

But entertainment can be art and art can be entertainment, surely? Great books become art because to some extent they also entertain.

marienbad

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

But entertainment can be art and art can be entertainment, surely? Great books become art because to some extent they also entertain.

Most definitely, all art is great entertainment to those that like it, but I fully agree with your statement in the broadest way, Books video games cartoons , everything can be both.

I have seen chess games that were so beautiful they took my breath away and I would nearly consider them art. But I am open on that.

Amazotheamazing

marienbad wrote: »

Most definitely, all art is great entertainment to those that like it, but I fully agree with your statement in the broadest way, Books video games cartoons , everything can be both.

I have seen chess games that were so beautiful they took my breath away and I would nearly consider them art. But I am open on that.

With that in mind, do you risk turning what could be art into "just" entertainment by trying to appeal to everybody? there's no rule that history or art shouldn't be offensive, if the dog was called ****** than hard lines, that was his name, it's not up to us to change that.

ArtSmart

marienbad wrote: »

Most definitely, all art is great entertainment to those that like it, but I fully agree with your statement in the broadest way, Books video games cartoons , everything can be both.

I have seen chess games that were so beautiful they took my breath away and I would nearly consider them art. But I am open on that.

em, maybe we should keep it platonic for the moment...

marienbad

ArtSmart wrote: »

em, maybe we should keep it platonic for the moment...

Lost you bottle Aristotle !

ArtSmart

marienbad wrote: »

Lost you bottle Aristotle !

'twere just a fad, marienbad.

marienbad

ArtSmart wrote: »

'twere just a fad, marienbad.

Ah so sorry its a fad
I was there to be had
Lets stick to platonic
and all thing Ionic

ArtSmart

of course a little frolicking
(without the bollocking)
can be a rollocking
good cure for chess.


(just back, that was off the top of my head. not bad eh?)

ArtSmart

ironic, to be ionic*
go supersonic
and bond electronic
one must drink the gin
without the tonic





from wiki
An *ionic bond is a type of chemical bond that involves a metal and a nonmetal ion (or polyatomic ions such as ammonium) through electrostatic attraction. In short, it is a bond formed by the attraction between two oppositely charged ions.

marienbad

ArtSmart wrote: »

of course a little frolicking
(without the bollocking)
can be a rollocking
good cure for chess.


(just back, that was off the top of my head. not bad eh?)

Not bad at all
but was it art ?
just not my call
I'm not that smart

ArtSmart

marienbad wrote: »

Not bad at all
but was it art ?
just not my call
I'm not that smart

oh, marion dear
have no fear
i'm under no delusion
by your conclusion

marienbad

ArtSmart wrote: »

oh, marion dear
have no fear
i'm under no delusion
by your conclusion

Are ye right there michael are ye right
do ya think we'll be finished by tonight
we cant we go on much longer
The mods will thing its wronger
so goodnight now, michael, goodnight !

ArtSmart

au revoir.

Mellor

marienbad wrote: »

The Diary Of Samuel Pepys/Boswell Life of Johnson/ Richard Ellmann's biograpy of James Joyce /Primo Levi /All the Greek and Roman Histories.

The list is endless and all may not agree with all of it .

Bte, I wasn't suggesting there was none, I was saying I couldn't think of you.
I'd agree with some above, Levi's memoirs are ful of insight into human condition. not personally familar with most of the others. But I'd agree that a good biography is art.

I'd also consider a lot of gonzo type works art, and many are in a limbo between fiction and non-fiction.


But, Greek/Roman histories, that's fiction. Them boys never let the truth get in the way of a good story

ArtSmart

NhocCuteGirlz wrote: »

Perhaps what we are seeing here is an inability to differentiate between the use of the N word in a book, as a literary device, and in normal conversation, where it is obvious a low insult.

__________________

'sactly. or a commercial work

John

marienbad wrote: »

I have seen chess games that were so beautiful they took my breath away and I would nearly consider them art. But I am open on that.

"The chess pieces are the block alphabet which shapes thoughts; and these thoughts, although making a visual design on the chess-board, express their beauty abstractly, like a poem... I have come to the personal conclusion that while all artists are not chess players, all chess players are artists."
- Marcel Duchamp

marienbad

NhocCuteGirlz wrote: »

Well its copyright has expired so it's in the public domain, which means it's a free-for-all, as far as I can see. Consider the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies book - the author basically took Jane Austen's book and edited to their liking.





On the point of Huck Finn - I disagree with the edit. The inclusion of such words in a book like that is nearly central to its purpose. Huck Finn is described as one of the "Great American Novels": an accurate encapsulation of a specific time and place in American history. But if the N word is removed then it partly ceases to succeed in that regard as it no longer reflects accurately the society and culture in question. It was a bigoted society, and a book about it should illustrate that.



The Sound and the Fury is similar, even "worse". One of the main characters Jason consistently calls his (paid) servants "****" and abuses them verbally and mentally. But such abuse is central to the character of Jason, and its removal or its moderation would severely hamper the artistic intention of William Faulker.



Perhaps what we are seeing here is an inability to differentiate between the use of the N word in a book, as a literary device, and in normal conversation, where it is obvious a low insult.

__________________

and in some cases the artist is an obnoxious racist and his works reeks of it , but that is part of the price we pay for great art. Prime examples are T.S Eliot and Wagner.