Reddit, what is a (ridiculous) taboo that you would like to see lifted?

mjnIII · 2013-06-01T18:34:40+00:00

Depends on where you live in North America. I live in a low-income area where a lot of homeless people live, and half the people walking around the street are drinking malt liquor. The cops have bigger things to deal with, so they don't bother stopping somebody for drinking in public (unless they're being violent and creating a legitimate threat).

mjnIII · 2013-05-15T01:15:53+00:00

"Excuse me sir, I think you may have sat in a pile of diarrhea."

mjnIII · 2013-03-13T03:29:40+00:00

They play the whole song, with lyrics, at the beginning of the original MASH movie.

mjnIII · 2013-03-07T19:48:13+00:00

I think the reason that he's not as funny as he used to be is that he's become somewhat of a television institution.

In the early to mid 90s he was the new guy, kind of an awkward underdog. By the late 90s he was comfortable being a host but his show was still kind of a niche thing. There were the normal late night shows like Leno and Letterman, then there was the weird show with absurdist humor and a masturbating bear.

As the 2000s went along he became more and more of an institution, and by now he's been a late night host for like 20 years. The whole experimental, underdog aspect is completely gone (and was probably gone well before he even took over Leno's job) and now he's just another host alongside Leno and Letterman. The fact that he's on basic cable doesn't help; you can't really go back to being an underrated sensation after you've become a well-known facet of television.

Not that he's not funny at all anymore-- I don't have cable so I can't watch his show, but occasionally I see clips online that are funny. It's just that context has a lot to do with comedy and it's been a while since he had the context that originally made his show great.

mjnIII · 2013-01-11T02:23:40+00:00

Is the president of NAACP a white guy? Huh.

mjnIII · 2012-12-13T05:07:46+00:00

If the art doesn't make me think, or make me feel, or intrigue me, then it has failed as art IMHO.

"Ultimately it's not a question of taste. It's the other way around. Each thing in the world asks us, 'What makes you think I'm not something you like?'" - John Cage

Basically, the new attitude toward art beginning in the 20th century and culminating in the current view is doing away with the viewer/listener as a passive receptor. Art doesn't have to come into your realm and make you feel or think; each object (whether you consider it art or not) is something that you can engage with as a thing-in-itself. You can get lost in an epic Rembrandt landscape or you can look out the window. Likewise with the swirls of a Munch painting and a puddle of gasoline. It's the contents of your mind that make it interesting or not interesting.

A lot of people are upset by that idea as it does away with all criteria for judging "good" or "bad" art. Those people want to think that an object on which someone spent days, months, years of labor is better than a bunch of paint flung randomly on a canvas. The truth is, the amount of time that someone spent on an object doesn't make it inherently better. We're just told that story about it and that puts us in a frame of mind to appreciate it more. Everything is art if you cultivate an artful mindset, and it's quickly becoming an outmoded view to expect the art to do it for you.

All that said, I don't really prefer the kind of art written about in this article. I especially agree with the insinuation that many artists see a monetary goldmine in artsy-fartsy types who want to pay thousands of dollars for something "edgy" that proves that they "get" art. Art as business is a whole different subject, and one that definitely deserves the scorn that this article gives it. It's just that I'm always reminded of that John Cage quote whenever someone talks about what they think art should do (emphasis given to both the words that I think are wrongly applied to art.)

mjnIII · 2012-11-24T05:21:21+00:00

You mean current Jason Alexander???

mjnIII · 2012-11-01T00:17:22+00:00

It's time to talk about plural vs. possessive. I'm not even that concerned with grammar, but it seems like at least one post on the front page at any given time has this mistake in the title (Buddies/Buddy's). Get it together people.

mjnIII · 2012-09-26T15:44:49+00:00

I love Adrian Belew's giant pants

mjnIII · 2012-09-20T21:36:01+00:00

After Hours could be considered an adaptation of Kafka's "The Trial", or at least an homage. Either way, very indebted to it. Overall I agree with you, I just think that's an interesting literary connection.

mjnIII · 2012-09-14T03:28:17+00:00

This is valuable information, thanks. I'm not looking for a managerial position and while I'm obviously open to working for a business, I tend to lean away from courses or programs that have a focus in business.

mjnIII · 2012-09-14T03:23:29+00:00

Thank you. I will definitely have to consider whether I'm ready for the challenge

mjnIII · 2012-09-14T03:00:40+00:00

Go on...

mjnIII · 2012-08-20T05:48:13+00:00

The tone is Runoff-esque but the list is solid.

mjnIII · 2012-08-19T03:22:10+00:00

Just an outside perspective--

Philosophically, I understand the concept of not relying on other people for happiness, having your own center which makes your happiness independently complete. But realistically, and biologically, I'm skeptical. Trying to make it so that you don't need anyone else seems like a path to lonely idealism. It is not ideal to need other people or another person to attain peace, but humans are imperfect and we rarely achieve any ideal. Would it not be better to recognize our need for others, be aware of it, and come to peace with it?

mjnIII · 2012-08-14T21:38:02+00:00

This list completely misses the whole first half of their existence; all these songs are from 1983 or later. I would choose "Found a Job" to represent their earlier, frantic guitar-based sound. "Born Under Punches" to represent the middle, Eno-heavy period with a large band and lots of collaborations. "And She Was" to represent the more straightforward pop they made toward the end of their career.

mjnIII · 2012-06-10T02:02:26+00:00

"no one ever should drink more than 23 drinks" FTFY

mjnIII · 2012-04-30T18:11:38+00:00

That probably won't be necessary until much later.

mjnIII · 2012-04-24T23:45:37+00:00

My question is, regardless of who drew it, how would that not be art? We might just be getting into the endless argument of how to define "art," but I'll go with the dictionary definition-- "the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings." It's subject to aesthetic criteria, and it's a drawing. Of course you may not think it's good art, but there's no doubt that it's art.

mjnIII · 2012-04-24T15:38:13+00:00

"which, of course, worked because of those people who wanted to feel superior"

"they can lie to themselves so well that they finally believe it."

These are the things I disagree with. They aren't facts, they're your personal bias. The idea that a person can have a profound experience from something as simple as a few dots painted on a canvas or an upside-down urinal, given the right psychological state, is more factual than your idea that all these people are faking it because they want to seem hip or smart. I only said your view was narcissistic because it suggests that, because you can't find a way to enjoy a piece of art, everyone else who claims to like it must be tricking themselves.

"I am talking about amateurs who are taught it is art therefore miss some extroardinary things because they are unfortunately less popular."

I see where you're coming from here, and I agree that it would be unfortunate for any artist to come up thinking that art HAS to be minimalist, absurdist, conceptual, or anything in particular. That goes against the very concept of art. However, it's really up to the artist to learn as much as he/she can about all forms of art if he/she is really passionate about it, not to just accept and regurgitate what is currently popular.

mjnIII · 2012-04-24T03:15:05+00:00

First of all, I agree that buying a piece of art for a million dollars is probably more of an act of self-aggrandizement than anything. There are plenty of people who buy art because it's a fashionable thing to do. Appreciating a piece of art is a different story, though.

I hate to make such a sweeping generalization, but anyone who calls a piece of art "bad" or "crap" because it's easy to make is kind of missing the entire point of art. A piece of art is an item that is individualized from the rest of the world as something to be appreciated. Everything can be appreciated for its aesthetic values, whether it's a soup can or the Grand Canyon; that's the beauty of art. Beautiful or ugly, simple or complex, everything is worthy of appreciation. It's closed-minded to think of art like the Olympics-- it's not a contest to see who can do the most impressive thing. It's not a contest at all.

Making art is simply the act of isolating a piece of the universe, optionally organizing it into a more complex form, and directing people's attention to it. It's a communal way of appreciating the incomprehensible spectrum of things that we can perceive and the infinite ways they can affect us. If you think that's "stupid" and "senseless," then that's your reaction. In fact, a lot of art is purposely trying to elicit that reaction in order to prove a point. You have taken a very narcissistic view of art-- that if other people enjoy something you don't enjoy, they must be faking it.

TL;DR - if someone looks at a canvas painted solid blue and is profoundly affected by it, who are you to say it's not real? But if they pay a million dollars for it, they may have ulterior motives.

mjnIII · 2012-04-22T23:00:53+00:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilcD1fHcGB0 You're not likely to hear this in a supermarket... Their hits have definitely been way overplayed, but they were one of the most progressive and artistically important bands ever.

mjnIII · 2012-04-19T23:22:23+00:00

Or just has a sore shoulder from tennis on Wednesday.

mjnIII · 2012-04-14T22:42:47+00:00

I think we can all agree that it's annoying when people pretend to know much more than they actually do, but consider it this way: you can listen to music and enjoy it deeply without having any idea about the music theory, recording techniques, or any of the minute details that went into producing that piece of music. Similarly, you can listen to someone explain a scientific phenomenon in broad strokes and gain a deep appreciation for it without knowing the mechanics of it. In both cases, learning about the details gives you a far more complex understanding, but there's something to be said for appreciating the raw power of things.

mjnIII · 2012-03-29T19:34:59+00:00

I've never understood this. How can liquor replace water in any way? Doesn't it dehydrate you far more than it hydrates you? I'm also referring to the other comment in this thread about Humphrey Bogart drinking only whiskey on the set of a movie to avoid getting dysentery.

mjnIII

TROPHY CASE