Okay, why? How does one separate form from content?
> Or put the hate "in context" and still appreciate
the artistry.
But that is just as much a cultural convention as not putting the hate in context and responding to it as hate.
> So Obama's approval of manifest destiny and it's
resultant genocide is artistic propaganda to savor,
not to condemn as hate speech.
How did he get into this?
> Mather's gay bashing is also to be put into context
and seen as the authentic artistry of an angry young man
rather than hate speech.
But does the authenticity of the artistry defang the hate in all cases?
Or is it required that the spectator be committed to the position that authentic artistry defangs hate for it to occur? (I have a running argument with a film critic over this issue. He maintains that form when powerfully deployed causes the viewer to agree -- if only for the duration of the film -- to agree with the content of the art work even if such content would normally be abhorrent to the viewer).
Also, does the authenticity of his hate make it more palatable?
> Or we can label it ironic and appreciate it from that
perspective.
But what if the artist does not mean it as ironic. Does the spectator then misinterpret/misunderstand the work if she repsonds to it in an ironic way?
> The framing is far more important than the actual hate.
Each spectator is entitled to frame as she pleases, but it is a personal judgement call, not a normative one.
> If someone else who is not an artist says the same thing
without labeling it art then we can condemn it as hate speech.
Exactly.
> Since some minorities agree with them it is obviously the
correct point of view and those who disagree are either too
provincial, ignorant, crass, or simplistically reductionist to
really understand.
But in this case, a queer like Elton John has nothing to lose so he can "absolve" Mathers all he wants to without running any risks.
Brian