#so many things to talk about

[itsblasttothepast]

So, I've watched Checo's documentary serie three times. Nope, I'm not exaggerating, it's just that every time I watched it, I saw something new and was amazed as how even when I've been his fan since the beginning, didn't know so many things, all the sacrifies, the family support... I found strange that Toño wasn't featured in the serie, but maybe because Paola was there.

The serie focuses in following Checo during his 2023 season, with the ups and downs, and with flashbacks to the start of his career and the highs and lows during that time. I was surpised by who were featured, we had already seen Alain Prost (trust me, listening him talk about his perspective and opinions was so amazing), Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton. But Christian Horner, Carlos Sainz Jr., George Russell, Daniel Ricciardo and Otmar Szafnauer were a pleasant surprise.

I wish that Daniel fans who hate Checo could see this, and hear Daniel talking about how hard is being there, and they showed how he and Checo are friendly, even when the press wanted to destroy them.

I missed Alonso, I thought he would be featured, but maybe he was busy when they were filming (the series focuses in certain races only, mostly the ones with street circuits, since those are Checo' specialty), but I was traumatized again when they showed Mexico 2023... that first curve DNF still hurts.

But what warmed my soul: Lewis kind words about Checo (my Chewis heart was so happy), and talking about how he's a fighter, Otmar so appreciative and highlighting the amazing and friendly person Checo is (honestly, the whole serie Otmar praised Checo so much, it made me hate him a little less, his eyes even shone in the last episode when he was saying how he gained a friend), and the cherry on top of this wonderful ride: Carlos Sainz Jr.

He said such nice things, was so warm and sweet, all his scenes made me so happy, hearing him talking about how hard is the F1 business, his experience, how he has Checo in high regard... it was bittersweet seeing that they're not as close this year, but I hope they can regain their friendly relationship... I felt hope last race, since they were together in the drivers parade:

Carlos, Nico and Checo were chatting, so I'm hoping they're back in good graces.

Anyway, this is the abridged review from a delusional fan of Checo, but if you want the long version, with screencaps and everything... give me time.

[doctorlombax]

So the finale has drastically altered my brain chemistry but one thing I don't see anybody talking about is ep7 when Charlie first tries to give her speech (while being heckled by Susan) she actually uses the line "I have a dream". The line from her song in the YouTube Pilot.

[boinky-doinky]

I have so many opinions about so many things regarding the foundation someone please ask me abt them

[jacquelinemerritt]

Postmodernism: It’s a Thing.

Originally posted March 7th, 2016

So, recently I’ve taken to reading the work of Film Crit HULK (who you should totally be reading too, by the way), and I came across an older article of his where he argues that postmodernism doesn’t exist. To summarize, HULK argues that there is no actual distinction between postmodernism and modernism, as both artistic movements had the same fundamental goals of questioning the validity of classically accepted truth, whether that truth be how to tell a story, how to express concepts with line and color, or how to construct buildings.

Now, I’m actually a postmodernist, but I still found his argument to be pretty compelling in regards to the weaknesses of our cultural definition of postmodernism and our collective lack of understanding of what modernism actually was and is. And as he argued, those problems lead to problems when attempting to discuss it, as most people just have a general sense of the concept instead of a solid definition.

The thing is, postmodernism definitely exists, and its existence is made clearest when looking at how it can be defined in the context of moral and political philosophy, as opposed to its murky existence in art. To put it simply, postmodernism in moral and political philosophy is the rejection of the modernist paradigm of rationalism, progressivism, and amorality in favor of a return to classical understanding of knowledge and the good.1

Okay, so I recognize that that’s a pretty technical definition that you’re not likely to get unless you’ve studied contemporary, modern, and ancient political philosophy, so I’ll explain what I mean. Modern political philosophy is defined by the works of three particular people: Niccolò Machiavelli, René Descartes, and Thomas Hobbes. All three of these authors’ works are concerned with tearing down the classical notions of the purpose of government, knowledge, and the good2, and in its place building a new standard for those things from scratch.

Machiavelli is first on the scene, and he challenges notions of morality and government by claiming the most effective and most secure rulers are tyrants who engage in an evil and selfish rule. Descartes chooses to take nothing for granted concerning knowledge and builds a systemic approach to knowledge based on the principle that the human ability to doubt is the only absolute certainty. Hobbes then takes Machiavelli a step further and questions the reasons for government existence (drawing of Cartesian doubt) determining that the sole purpose of government is to prevent us from killing each other and provide safety from external threats (the basics of his social contract theory), and by such logic the best government is the one that keeps citizens safe through extreme enforcement of harsh law3.

I could track the development of modernism by philosophers further4, but instead I’m just going to note that Cartesian rationalism and the Cartesian Method (which is quite similar to Newton’s scientific method) led to the rise of industrialism, and social contract theory led to the rise of democratic regimes across Europe and America, wherein democracy itself ended up being espoused as a good in and of itself (a la Lincoln’s American Civil Religion). From here, we can already see a parallel between philosophical and artistic modernism; both began as revolts against the traditional or classical doctrine of what art and the good is, and both developed their own approach to art and philosophy from scratch, questioning the very nature of beauty and thought in the process.

Postmodern political and moral philosophy then was a reaction to the ideals of modernism, with philosophers like Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, and Hannah Arendt emerging as harsh critics of their ideals. Now, HULK actually acknowledges this, and he argues that the reactionary nature of postmodernism makes it indistinguishable from modernism, but in doing so he chooses to ignore the significant methodological departure made by Heidegger and those that he influenced.

Heidegger’s philosophy was, on the surface, a rejection of both Modernist and Classical ideals, but his concern with the etymological significance of language and search for the original meaning of words and concepts was a shift from developing concepts based on evidence to developing concepts based on the “text” itself. Derrida expanded on this with his concept of “deconstruction” as an approach to textual and political criticism (deconstruction is the de facto approach of anyone concerned with systemic injustice), and Arendt used this textual approach to examine the nature of human activity and thought, and propose a return to the “active life” and emphasis on public action present in classical thought.

Most postmodern thought builds on the Arendtian paradigm here, focusing on a return to classical ideals and deconstruction of modernist ideals, with the final addition of note being how postmodernism rejects both modernist and classical notions of human relationship in favor of focusing on developing an empathetic relationship with “the other.” This is also the primary function of postmodernism’s “incredulity towards metanarratives,” as Jean-Francois Lyotard put it, as the emphasis on “the other” leads to a willingness to criticize any overarching concept put forth by society that attempts to denigrate or harm people for perceived differences. Also, as HULK noted, the focus on deconstruction certainly is a metanarrative itself, but the embrace of classical values within postmodernism means that it isn’t simply a rejection of metanarratives, as is commonly misconceived. Finally, it’s also important to mention postmodernism uses the metanarrative of “philosophy” itself as its tool to deconstruct philosophy (this is the stated goal of Heidegger, in fact).

So, going back to my original definition, if postmodern philosophy is “the rejection of the modernist paradigm of rationalism, progressivism, and amorality in favor of a return to classical understanding of knowledge and the good,” can we use that definition to create a similar one for art? I think we can, and given my explanation of how postmodernism approaches these goals, I think it is as simple as “Postmodern art uses the classical tools of art to deconstruct or interrogate either the classical or modern paradigm of art.”

Now, I’m not going to attempt to apply that to any of the arts outside of film and television, but the application of this definition becomes pretty easy: Community is a postmodern show because it uses the format of the sitcom to interrogate all kinds of concepts and assumptions associated with traditional storytelling, and Hot Fuzz is a postmodern film because it interrogates the tropes of action films while remaining an action film. On the other end, a modernist interrogation of sitcoms would be Too Many Cooks, as it interrogates the “TGIF��� sitcom era by showing the assumed state of peace and happiness within those sitcoms to be a complete lie, and a modernist action film would be one that distances itself entirely from and critiques the basis for that violence directly (unfortunately, I can’t think of a film that actually does this). Obviously there are many more potential examples I could turn to, and I’d actually be interested in discussing how this definition could apply to mediums outside film and TV, but for now, I feel like I have gone on for long enough about postmodernism and modernism. And I will be damned if they are not complicated to talk about.

Stray Observations

1Eudaimonia, if you prefer Greek.

2This is a slight fib, as Descartes had next to no concern with government, and neither Hobbes nor Machiavelli cared much about knowledge, though they certainly used Cartesian rationalism.

3Both Machiavelli and Hobbes have an incredibly pessimistic view of human nature, and it guides the entirety of their philosophies.

4If you want a much better and more detailed history of the development of modernism, you should read Leo Strauss’ essay “The Three Waves of Modernity.”

Let the record show that I feel like a proper pretentious douche for talking about Heidegger with no hints of irony whatsoever. There’s a similar feeling regarding Derrida as well.

I obviously have no shame in talking about Hannah Arendt, because she’s the freakin’ best.

I also recognize that this is hella esoteric, and that I’m also really failing to do justice to the ideas of any philosopher I mentioned here (it’s why this is a blog post instead of a proper academic paper), but I hope that this was still fairly easy to follow.

Also obviously most films with basic dramatic structure would fall under a “classical” paradigm.

[crispyliza]

I've got you all figured out fanartists

[akanemnon]

I don't like this place. It's turning everyone edgy and sad.

FIRST - PREVIOUS - NEXT

MASTERPOST (for the full series / FAQ / reference sheets)

[chloesimaginationthings]

FNAF movie Vanessa’s thoughts when meeting Abby..

[paintedcrows]

Holiday Classics

Been thinking about Ford watching the 70s Animated Lord of the Rings Movies... (companion comic to this post!)

[barghest-land]

drawings from paleo expedition to dagestan, done right on the trip. sometimes messy when it was cold and rainy, but i won't correct it. i think it's cool to leave it just the way it was done, and not retouch it after. there will be more drawings later, but those will be done from home

[inkskinned]

the thing about art is that it was always supposed to be about us, about the human-ness of us, the impossible and beautiful reality that we (for centuries) have stood still, transfixed by music. that we can close our eyes and cry about the same book passage; the events of which aren't real and never happened. theatre in shakespeare's time was as real as it is now; we all laugh at the same cue (pursued by bear), separated hundreds of years apart.

three years ago my housemates were jamming outdoors, just messing around with their instruments, mostly just making noise. our neighbors - shy, cautious, a little sheepish - sat down and started playing. i don't really know how it happened; i was somehow in charge of dancing, barefoot and laughing - but i looked up, and our yard was full of people. kids stacked on the shoulders of parents. old couples holding hands. someone had brought sidewalk chalk; our front walk became a riot of color. someone ran in with a flute and played the most astounding solo i've ever heard in my life, upright and wiggling, skipping as she did so. she only paused because the violin player was kicking his heels up and she was laughing too hard to continue.

two weeks ago my friend and i met in the basement of her apartment complex so she could work out a piece of choreography. we have a language barrier - i'm not as good at ASL as i'd like to be (i'm still learning!) so we communicate mostly through the notes app and this strange secret language of dancers - we have the same movement vocabulary. the two of us cracking jokes at each other, giggling. there were kids in the basement too, who had been playing soccer until we took up the far corner of the room. one by one they made their slow way over like feral cats - they laid down, belly-flat against the floor, just watching. my friend and i were not in tutus - we were in slouchy shirts and leggings and socks. nothing fancy. but when i asked the kids would you like to dance too? they were immediately on their feet and spinning. i love when people dance with abandon, the wild and leggy fervor of childhood. i think it is gorgeous.

their adults showed up eventually, and a few of them said hey, let's not bother the nice ladies. but they weren't bothering us, they were just having fun - so. a few of the adults started dancing awkwardly along, and then most of the adults. someone brought down a better sound system. someone opened a watermelon and started handing out slices. it was 8 PM on a tuesday and nothing about that day was particularly special; we might as well party.

one time i hosted a free "paint along party" and about 20 adults worked quietly while i taught them how to paint nessie. one time i taught community dance classes and so many people showed up we had to move the whole thing outside. we used chairs and coatracks to balance. one time i showed up to a random band playing in a random location, and the whole thing got packed so quickly we had to open every door and window in the place.

i don't think i can tell you how much people want to be making art and engaging with art. they want to, desperately. so many people would be stunning artists, but they are lied to and told from a very young age that art only matters if it is planned, purposeful, beautiful. that if you have an idea, you need to be able to express it perfectly. this is not true. you don't get only 1 chance to communicate. you can spend a lifetime trying to display exactly 1 thing you can never quite language. you can just express the "!!??!!!"-ing-ness of being alive; that is something none of us really have a full grasp on creating. and even when we can't make what we want - god, it feels fucking good to try. and even just enjoying other artists - art inherently rewards the act of participating.

i wasn't raised wealthy. whenever i make a post about art, someone inevitably says something along the lines of well some of us aren't that lucky. i am not lucky; i am dedicated. i have a chronic condition, my hands are constantly in pain. i am not neurotypical, nor was i raised safe. i worked 5-7 jobs while some of these memories happened. i chose art because it mattered to me more than anything on this fucking planet - i would work 80 hours a week just so i could afford to write in 3 of them.

and i am still telling you - if you are called to make art, you are called to the part of you that is human. you do not have to be good at it. you do not have to have enormous amounts of privilege. you can just... give yourself permission. you can just say i'm going to make something now and then - go out and make it. raquel it won't be good though that is okay, i don't make good things every time either. besides. who decides what good even is?

you weren't called to make something because you wanted it to be good, you were called to make something because it is a basic instinct. you were taught to judge its worth and over-value perfection. you are doing something impossible. a god's ability: from nothing springs creation.

a few months ago i found a piece of sidewalk chalk and started drawing. within an hour i had somehow collected a small classroom of young children. their adults often brought their own chalk. i looked up and about fifteen families had joined me from around the block. we drew scrangly unicorns and messed up flowers and one girl asked me to draw charizard. i am not good at drawing. i basically drew an orb with wings. you would have thought i drew her the mona lisa. she dragged her mother over and pointed and said look! look what she drew for me and, in the moment, i admit i flinched (sorry, i don't -). but the mother just grinned at me. he's beautiful. and then she sat down and started drawing.

someone took a picture of it. it was in the local newspaper. the summary underneath said joyful and spontaneous artwork from local artists springs up in public gallery. in the picture, a little girl covered in chalk dust has her head thrown back, delighted. laughing.

[cthulhum]

does anyone realize how crazy it is to have the actor of a mostly headcanoned queer ship say the fans were never crazy and they were right all along after 10+ years of everyone just absolutely going nuts over the said queerbaited ship

[popsicle-stick]

will you meet me halfway?

anyway i finished wolf 359 earlier this month and ive been insane ever since so i had to get this out my system. i Care for them so so Deeply

[shepscapades]

[Set in Mid-Late Hermitcraft Season 8]

In which we learn a little something about Cub, a little something about Doc, and a little something about Xisuma.

[platoapproved]

armand + a few offhand lines that give some insight into how he thinks (imho)

[letsplaythermalnuclearwar]

Homer!Odysseus and Epic!Odysseus would try to kill each other if they ever met

[bookalicent]

yeah so this was insane