What Art is REALLY About

Some e-migos and I were discussing this in an offline.  The movie in question was Fight Club.  I think we all agreed that the movie’s no-doubt-SJW writer thought his film was about “toxic masculinity,” but that’s not how it was received — most people nowadays who watch Fight Club (which came out nearly 20 years ago, remember) really want to be Tyler Durden.  He’s not a caricature of chest-puffing machismo; he’s an ideal to aspire to.

I know, I know, if they could see the obvious consequences of their positions they wouldn’t be liberals, but the goodthinkers behind too-clever-by-half “deconstructions” like Fight Club really ought to have had second thoughts.  Back in Fight Club days, postmodernism was all the rage, and if you got past English Lit 101 you’d soon be introduced to the joys of reader-response criticism.  A work’s author, this theory says, is irrelevant; what a given artwork “means” is how the audience responds to it.

Now as with all things Leftish, there’s a grain of truth to this.  Cracked.com (the genesis of this particular discussion btw) is chock full of semi-amusing listicles about authors who hated their most famous novels, actors who despiste their iconic roles, etc., almost all of which boil down to “the stupid audience doesn’t understand what I was doing.”  The audience is a big factor, probably the main factor, in determining how a work will be received.*

Which suggests a nice line of counterattack for the Alt-Righters, who internet much better than the SJWs.  Reader-response criticism puts authors on the defensive.  If everyone who loves Fight Club thinks Tyler Durden is a role model, then it’s up to Jim Uhls (screenplay) and Chuck Palahniuk (novel) to explain why he’s not.  Maybe they’re too big to respond to the likes of us, but it should be pretty easy to back your average Gender Studies major into a corner in a comment section: “So tell us, Snowflake, just why is Tyler Durden an avatar of ‘toxic masculinity’?  And no, ‘wow just wow I can’t even’ is not an answer.”

Meme it up.  Why, for example, is this so bad?

97bfbc65ac9576f2d7dbe478f8d71f36

Someone like me can discuss the pros and cons of National Socialism with you, because I’ve read a book that isn’t Harry Potter.  Can your average SJW?  To ask is to answer.  I say The Man in the High Castle, book and tv series, is about how great life is in the Greater German Reich.  Discuss.

See what I mean?  Put them on the defensive.  Wow just wow, you can’t even?  Gosh, you’re really getting your $250K in student loan debt’s worth, eh Snowflake?

 

 

 

 

*Which explains a lot of “great” literature, in my opinion.  Starting around the turn of the 20th century, writers wrote exclusively for critics — guys like James Joyce would be embarrassed to death to make a single grubby dollar off their work.  The audience responded, and we’ve all had to memorize the “fact” that bizarre, schizophrenic-chimp-on-crack stuff like Finnegan’s Wake is “Great Art.”

5 thoughts on “What Art is REALLY About

  1. I utterly despised Joyce in college. I now have a great descriptor as to WHY. Now I just need a couple for Wilde and Conrad…

    • Wilde because he was a degenerate who preached “art for art’s sake,” which is another way of saying that you’re only doing it for critical applause. I can’t help you with Conrad, as I consider Heart of Darkness one of the finest things ever written.

      • Well, I guess it’s personal taste. That, and I started as a Film major…Film has its “avant garde”…”Independants” in film vernacular (Douchers in the popular), just like music has its Hipsters. Every single one of them will gladly tell you ignoramuses that “Apocalypse Now” is based on HoD, and not ONE of them has ever read it. The Boredom…The Boredom…

        (That, and since they ALL are libs I know once they hit on the fact it deals with colonialism and the ivory trade they’d immediately use that as an excuse to stop reading, then claim the few pages they made it in as “reading the whole thing.”)

  2. If you watch the Fight Club commentary with Brad Pitt and Edward Norton it becomes a comedy, but if you’re a liberal you’ll never see it.

    • I’m pretty sure Ed Norton is as liberal as they come, but for all that he seems to be an interesting, thoughtful guy.

      I’ve always thought Fight Club was supposed to be a comedy. The writers thought they were making fun of “toxic masculinity” (a phrase just coming into vogue in academic circles back then). Normies (back then) thought the movie was making fun of yuppies — guys who were so obsessed over their jobs and their stuff that they had to go out and beat the shit out of each other (Brad Pitt is the amiable fratboy dunce everyone knows from college). It’s only now, when everyone has heard the phrase “toxic masculinity,” that it becomes something very different.

      The key scene is when Norton and Pitt are riding the bus and see the ad for the underwear model – he’s got a sixpack, is hairless and very pretty. Norton says “Is that what a real man is supposed to look like?” Meanwhile, half the movie is nothing but scenes of hairless, sixpacked pretty boy Brad Pitt in his underwear. You’re supposed to laugh at both the notion that underwear models are “real men,” AND the notion that guys in a Fight Club are “real men.” Nobody gets that now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *