#EXTENDING THE ELITISM OF WHAT ART CAN AND CANT BE AND WHY

[dykesbat]

art is amazing bc of how flexible it is! which is why the connection between art and consumerism is so interesting bc tht intentionally limits what is and isn’t art which serves both capitalism and facism. but art in its barest bones is inherent to all of humanity and taking art as a form of hobby is something so powerful to me..

[marciaillust]

hey, i hope you're doing great! i feel this may be unorthodox, but i really wanted to reach out to extend my engagement?— awe?— solidarity?— (some variant of those, anyways) with your most recent "workposting" art. i don't normally do this. I've maybe sent 3 asks in my whole life. there's no pressure to respond to this, as i mostly just wanted to cheer you on. also, I'm really sorry this is so long.

i only just recently landed my very first freelance art job, at a start-up company dedicated to making comics + DND inspired art content. I've always felt that "Its nothing to call home about", and so i really resonated with your feelings regarding your work for Brawl Stars. I felt kind of ashamed of my job, that its just a small start up— that I'm not enough and that i should be trying harder, or something like that. Specifically i resonated with your comment of "presenting brawl stars art feels like showing my anime girl oc to an art teacher" and i don't think i could have solidified any better.

Anyways. all's to say. I really found your work quite jaw-dropping. I was shocked when i read it was for Brawl Stars. I didn't know anything about it, but when i did some research i was even more amazed. they're really, really compositionally beautiful... i mean, i know its just "work" to you ultimately, but it really does feel lively, and everything about it makes it feel like you care. I think sometimes you're just able to tell when an artist genuinely cares about their work; about its end outcome. there's so many intricacies. and a lot of attention to detail. you kept the style that was necessary of you but i also can feel the warmth and the care of the artist behind it— its not corporate, or stale, it doesn't come across as "just work".

since you mentioned League, i genuinely do think it serves an equal purpose and weight to what League of Legends would produce. from a biased standpoint, i would actually value your work more. Its not even that its "more obtainable"/"more realistic" but that there's genuinely more feeling to it. Compositionally/artistically, yeah, League makes great stuff, but occasionally, the feeling or the sense of warmth and care from the creator of the art is lost along the way. I value seeing the artist within their own art a lot, which is why I've admitted to a degree of bias. either way. what you put out there is really gorgeous, and crazy impressive.

I know a stranger with a dumb, fandom-oriented art blog cant solve the self-indited art elitism (you and me both, man💀) and that you've already received plenty of love/reblogs saying similar things, but i wanted to extend my feelings anyways. Its really heart-warming, i guess. It brings me hopefulness, and deep adoration for the craft. I'm not very good with words. Anyways. don't undersell yourself. seeing your work meant more to me than you can imagine. I'm obviously nowhere near your skill level, but it meant more to me as an aspiration. i think that regardless of who you work for, your work is really valuable and downright incredible. because you bring that sense of warmth, care, time, and patience regardless of the media it portrays. and you're able to do that while being objectively talented— utilizing great compositions, colour pallets, shading, characterization, mood, etc. That is more valuable. That is much much cooler than working for Riot. imo.

Initially, i also wanted to ask you some questions about how you assembled your portfolio, if you went to school, (if so) what it did/didn't provide for you going into the art field, and just how you landed the job in general. But i respect you and your time, and wouldnt want to be a burden or anything. If you ever have time for it, i would love to ask them, among others, and we can chat in DM if you'd prefer. Absolutely no pressure. Im happy just watching from the sidelines. I dont anticipate anything from you to begin with! I just hope youll know how influential your post was to read & see, to someone like me!

Oh man. I. How. Where do I even start except

This is one of the most uplifting, touching and encouraging messages I received in my life. I read it thrice. And I still can't believe how full of love it is. This is such high praise, I want you to know I will cherish it and carry it with me for a long long time. It's not often that an artist gets to learn how their art is perceived, not to mention in such a positive light. It really means a lot to me.

It makes me so happy to hear that my work illustrations retain a piece of me that is visible to others. I myself can't see it, but I imagine my closeness to the matter at hand heavily impacts my ability to see objectively at all. There was a time where I was worried that work was overriding the me that makes my art mine, that I was becoming a corporate rendering machine and that what I did at work (the shape language and style) was bleeding into my personal art. There is a part of me that is now breathing easier after reading your message. I would love to answer any questions you have, it's the least I can do to repay you! Feel free to send an ask or even an email, I'll try to be as thorough as I can be with my answers. I wish you happy holidays! Take care! And again thank you so much for taking the time to write this message!

[baoanhwin]

If You’re in a Glasshouse …..

During Corbyn’s leadership, Labour was relentlessly attacked by the Tories, their supporters and cheerleaders in the press for the many failings which, they said, made Labour unfit to run the  country. Worth dwelling on the accusations for what they tell us about today’s Tories.

A sympathiser with IRA terrorism: well-worn, repeated on every possible occasion and, combined with his associations with various dubious Palestinian groups and past statements about the causes of Islamist terrorism, the Tories happily painted a picture of a man who seemed, well, ambivalent about the use of terror against civilians, if it was in support of a cause he supported. A man who, a week after the Brighton bombing, invited the convicted IRA volunteers, Linda Quigley and Gerry MacLochlainn, to the Commons, to the disgust of many in his own party – let alone the Tories. 35 years later Johnson was still berating Corbyn about it.

Anti–semitism: little more to be said on this, at least until the EHRC report comes out. The damage was caused at least as much by who Corbyn had associated with (those Holocaust deniers would keep on popping up at events where Corbyn was present) as by his own actions. The Tories enthusiastically adopted the maxim that you can judge a man by the company he keeps.

An unwillingness to stand up to Russia: Corbyn’s response to the Salisbury poisonings was used to show a man who did not take the Russian threat seriously, whether because of ideological sympathy by him or his advisors (Seamus Milne being particularly helpful in this regard) or simple naivety about Russia’s intentions.

An automatic anti-Western bias: all too easy to present Corbyn’s approach to foreign policy as little more than “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Any country or cause which criticised the West, no matter how awful themselves, found favour: Iran, the Serbs during Yugoslavia’s bloody civil war, Venezuela. It sometimes seemed that concern for human rights was less about those deprived of them and more about how to use the concept to beat up whoever Corbyn disliked most.

An obsession with identity politics: as if all politics is not at some level about “identity” (the Brexit campaign waves hello). Still, the accusation went, Labour was unwilling to speak up for white working-class girls in its heartlands for fear of confronting other client groups and/or being accused of racism. It betrayed those suffering from child abuse on the altar of political correctness. Tom Watson’s parti pris accusations against senior Tories must have infuriated those thinking child abuse too vile a crime to be used for political advantage.

Nepotism and cronyism: Corbyn’s son working for McDonnell, Andrew Murray’s daughter appointed to a plum Labour Party role, McCluskey’s old squeeze to another. All very cosy and incestuous.

So you’d think, wouldn’t you, that the Tories would not fall into the same traps, that they would take care about who they associate with, who they promote, who they praise and elevate? Apparently not, if those nominated by the government to be peers is anything to go by. Deemed suitable to be a member of our legislature are:- 

A woman who has consistently denied the war crimes carried out by the Bosnian Serbs against Bosnian Muslims, who – as publisher (of Living Marxism) – was found by a court to have libelled two ITV journalists who reported the facts about what was happening, who dismissed the court’s decision, after the verdict likening the two journalists to David Irving because they had both brought litigation – ignoring the critical difference between them. (Perhaps the differences between telling the truth and inventing facts might be a worthy topic for a future Moral Maze programme.) Certainly, disregard for facts and dismissal of court rulings is now very a la mode. Ms Fox was simply ahead of her time. If you want an example of the intellectually dishonest reasoning of the founder of The Academy of Ideas on this topic, read here. The inability to understand the difference between the denial of established facts and shutting down unpopular opinions would disgrace an averagely bright A-level student. As Deborah Lipstadt, a woman who knows a thing or two about genocide denial, has put it: everyone is free to have their own opinions; they are not free to invent their own facts.

Ms Fox did not have much regard then for freedom of speech though, strangely, when it came to child abuse and jihadist videos, her concern was all for freedom of speech including, apparently, the freedom to disseminate films of criminal offences, though she apparently knows (how?) that most child abuse videos are “simulated”. Nor – more grotesquely – has she ever resiled from or apologised for her pro-IRA views and their campaign of violence before 1998, a campaign which killed and injured, not just thousands of innocents in Ireland and Britain, but 3 Tory MPs, their wives and tried to assassinate a PM.

What a forgiving party the current Tory party now is! Poor Jeremy must be wondering why no forgiveness was extended to him. Perhaps it might have been, had he been pro-Brexit. After all, that’s why she has been elevated, isn’t it, pro-Brexit views being the British equivalent of medieval Catholic indulgences wiping away all other sins? But if the quota for pro-Brexit media loudmouths simply had to be filled, couldn’t Daniel Hannan be prevailed upon? Or Ann Widdecombe, in extremis?

A former editor of the Evening Standard (previously deputy editor of the Daily Telegraph, when Johnson was a columnist there) who strongly supported the PM in his first election for London Mayor 12 years ago. A 2018 CBE for services to the arts since did not suffice apparently. 

The current owner of the Evening Standard, who together with his father, a former KGB agent until 1992, has made oodles of money which he has used to buy his way into the higher echelons of London society, much as described in the ISC’s recent report on Russia (pp.15-17). Look who’s being naïve now. 

The PM’s brother, an MP for 9 years, a junior Minister for 3, mainly known for having resigned twice as a Minister, the second time from his brother’s government, over Brexit. He then chose not to stand again as an MP. However worthy, it’s not exactly a lifetime of public service.

Ambivalence towards violence, naivety about Britain’s enemies, associating with undesirables, cronyism, nepotism, revolting views. We have them all. Johnson has not just adopted Labour’s public spending but their less desirable “values” as well. And added some Grade A hypocrisy into the mix, so that we can enjoy the spectacle of those railing against unelected European bureaucrats appointing unelected legislators that the people can never get rid of or hold accountable.

What have we missed in the meanwhile? Well, the setting up of a panel to come up with curbs on judicial review, led by a QC and former Minister, who in February wrote that the government should limit the courts’ power (impartial tribunals are so passé). Edward Faulks’ other claim to fame was being advisor to Chris Grayling when he was Lord Chancellor and enacted reforms to Legal Aid which have pretty much destroyed it and, in consequence, the ability of anyone other than the wealthy to access justice.

The panel’s terms of reference are here, clause 4(b) being the important one, seeking to remove or limit the “duty of candour” by the government to the court and other parties. In short, if the government does not have to be honest in its explanations (and remember, this was a government which could find no-one willing to swear on oath what the reasons for proroguing Parliament last year were), how can it be effectively scrutinised or challenged? Why should the people know? They exist just to be venerated when it suits the government politically, not to be treated as adults and trusted with information so that they can hold the government properly accountable. Once again, the government gives the impression that its attitude to law is as described by Anarchasis: “Written laws are like spiders’ webs; they catch the weak and poor but are torn in pieces by the rich and powerful.”

There is one thing to be grateful for. We need never again be troubled by Tories railing about Labour’s attitude to terrorist violence or child abuse or fondness for unelected elites or being too pro-Russian or having dodgy friends or being run by cronies. We know now – if we did not before – that such concern is so much cant, useful only as a political weapon. And if they try, we can point at Johnson’s very own “Lavender List”, perfumed with the stink of hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism, and laugh. Small mercies, these days.

Cyclefree

from politicalbetting.com https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/08/04/if-youre-in-a-glasshouse/ https://dangky.ric.win/

[aleesblog]

Review of Mentored by a Madman:The William Burroughs Experiment in Lancet Neurology

Keeping an open mind in neurological practice

A J Lees’ Mentored by a Madman is a kaleidoscopic mix of his experiences as a neurologist, his private passions and how they have informed his career, as well as his thoughts regarding some of the bureaucracy that limits research and medical practice today. What gives this book such a unique perspective is the part played by the titular “madman”— William Burroughs, author of iconic novels such as Junky and Naked Lunch. It is a rare thing to  nd a book with such a unique perspective and accompanying content; however, this is exactly what Mentored by a Madman provides.

Lees’ book begins with how he became familiar with Burroughs’ work during his inception into the medical profession, a time during which he describes feeling inept and lacking in con dence—something many new recruits to medicine will still identify with. Lees  rst spotted Burroughs’ unfamiliar face on the album cover of Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band and looked him up. He then became an avid reader of his work while at medical school, an interest which continued throughout his lifetime. Lees describes Burroughs as his ”guiding lamp” and the catalyst that made him “verify, refute, and establish the validity” of everything he did. Lees then takes us on a fascinating journey through his career, highlighting key events that have culminated in this interesting personal re ection. His memory for detail is captivating at times—for example, his ability to recount the platform number he alights on, and the song playing, as he arrives in London is quite extraordinary.

The book is also reminiscent in some ways of the literary work of Oliver Sacks, someone Lees goes on to discuss working with in more detail. He refers to the ostracising of Sacks following the critical and bitter responses of the medical community to a 1970 publication in The Journal of the American Medical Association and the subsequent book Awakenings. Indeed, Lees experiences such treatment himself following a 1995 BMJ publication suggesting an increased mortality rate in patients who had taken selegiline and L-dopa. This of course is all contained in more detailed recollections of his work during this time with the drug L-dopa and its use in patients with Parkinson’s disease, a condition that formed a signi cant part of Lees’ medical career. Lees also worked with several survivors of encephalitis lethargica, testing bromocriptine in a clinical trial. Although unsuccessful in this population, it showed much greater success in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

As someone who regularly speaks on the importance of narrative medicine, I found it heartening to read about Lees’ personal approach to patients—putting the person rst, recording the actual words used by the patients, and not interrupting. He even extends this personal approach to his  rst cadaver—whose name (Wolynski) he documents—

because he is “grateful for his sacri ce, and [I] have never forgotten him”. With this attitude at the centre of his medical practice, it is easy to see why Lees rails against the notion that at times medicine, research, and pharmacology seem to exist for the bene t of those providing them and not for the bene t of the patient. As he describes it, this problem stems from replacing healing with treatment, listening with investigations, and caring with management.

Although he does not bemoan in detail, Lees does take the opportunity to raise issues he feels deeply about. He mourns the lack of passion and art in medical, academic, and research literature—a fault he feels reduces our capacity to intrigue, inspire, and motivate new (and old) audiences, both academic and lay. Whatever one thinks of the academic and literary works of Sacks, he achieved this elevation of science to an art despite criticisms by those who considered themselves part of an academic elite. Lees also laments several systems and their processes which he feels limits and disrupts medicine; for example, anonymous peer-review systems which he feels have the capacity to e ectively silence new research and  ndings. He also laments “pro t- driven medical science” that he fears feeds the ”worried well” and which unnecessarily medicates people on a vast scale. He raises concerns about how much new research is inhibited by overt bureaucracy (waiting times, league tables, data protection and ethics), meaning that the research agendas can only be driven by those who can a ord to do so. As well as a personal account of Lees’ experiences, this book also serves as a call for more open-mindedness and freedom in our exploration of medical science.

There are several tensions at the heart of the book. At one point, Lees talks of navigating between alternate worlds: his provincial upbringing and fascination for natural history and botany clash with his expectations of life in a sophisticated city like London; his passion for healing, medicine, and research, contrast with his experience of “old boy networks” and the historical brutal treatment of some patients; and the studious persona of his professional life competes with the Harlem shu ing hipster of his leisure time. But it is these contradictions that contribute so much to the book and to Lees’ capacity for self-re ection and analysis.

Threaded throughout is, of course, the shadow and works of William Burroughs—he sits on Lees’ shoulder, cajoling him constantly to look beyond the norm. The result often leads to surprising experiences—smuggling, drug trials that include just one patient, and the participation of mind-altering plants in Columbia! As Lees puts it, Burroughs empowers him to “ y crookedly in my curiosity for cures”.

Ava Easton