Moz writes open letter to Australian Deputy PM about live animal export - PETA Australia

Posted today via peta.org.au:

Morrissey Asks Barnaby Joyce: Stop the Live-Export ‘Slow Boat to Hell’ - PETA Australia

As Morrissey wraps up his Australian tour, the music legend and animal advocate fired off a letter to Barnaby Joyce, Australia’s Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Deputy Prime Minister, urging him to put “the live-export industry out of its misery”.

Read Morrissey's letter (PDF)



UPDATE 9:40PM PT:

Link posted by Uncleskinny:

Morrissey to Barnaby Joyce: 'If meat is murder, live export is the slow boat to hell' - The Guardian

Includes response from Barnaby Joyce via Twitter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Comments

M

Musician

Guest
If it's arrogant for an artist to say they know what art is then so be it. If a scientist says he knows his stuff people just accept it. Apart from the climate change unbelievers that is.
Except science can be described pretty much accurately, the disciplines, etc. Art can't be. See my original comment: peopel tried to define ''art'' for centuries, they couldn't. It's even more difficult now, so I still think it's arrogant. If you are an artist indeed, let your audience decide if what you do is art or not.
 

rifke

ladies bear (inquire within)
Except science can be described pretty much accurately, the disciplines, etc. Art can't be. See my original comment: peopel tried to define ''art'' for centuries, they couldn't. It's even more difficult now, so I still think it's arrogant. If you are an artist indeed, let your audience decide if what you do is art or not.
yes, obviously. science can be objectively measured and tested. that was about the worst comparison i can think of. if people just knew what art is, so many actually great artists wouldn't have gone to their deaths thinking they were nobodies because their art hadnt been recognized as such in their lifetimes. in all the books i've ever read on the subject i've never heard one single definition of art, nor have i ever heard an artist before claim they know what it is. rather, i think, the most we can say about art is that, like some judge said in a famous pornograpy case, we "know it when we see it"--which is a much different thing than saying we "know what it is" in general. saying we know what art is in general hints at the idea that art has somehow been contained. saying we know it when we see it, suggests that the viewer, not just the artist, also has a role in determining what art is--and thus, just because you've arrogantly given yourself the title "artist", doesnt mean you know what art is anymore than a non-artist. but whatever. i have to remember that it was with the same unwarranted arrogance that marred claimed him/herself to be an artist and to know what art is, that he/she also sought to give an erroneous grammar lesson. we can only hope that he/she is a better artist than grammarian.
 

marred

Member
Except science can be described pretty much accurately, the disciplines, etc. Art can't be. See my original comment: peopel tried to define ''art'' for centuries, they couldn't. It's even more difficult now, so I still think it's arrogant. If you are an artist indeed, let your audience decide if what you do is art or not.
I understand you and some others find it difficult. It's just that I don't.

I don't have a problem with you thinking it's arrogant. Audiences and purveyors of art can voice their opinions and they are all more than welcome to do so but opinions are not the final word and a non artist will not be deciding if an artist's work is art or not. That is an insanely hilarious concept.

I'd say the people who have been struggling with the concept of art over the years that a substantial portion of them are not artists themselves. The day I listen to one of those people will be a cold day in a hot place.

Okay, now back to Barnaby Joyce.
 
Last edited:

countthree

Well-Known Member
Except science can be described pretty much accurately, the disciplines, etc. Art can't be. See my original comment: peopel tried to define ''art'' for centuries, they couldn't. It's even more difficult now, so I still think it's arrogant. If you are an artist indeed, let your audience decide if what you do is art or not.
Year 1600...
This was art: http://www.historyofpainters.com/caravaggio.htm
This was science: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

Year 2016...
Guess what still remains being what it was...

Art is one of the most powerful human expression. Artists can change the world, and they did it from the beginning of times. Art is essential, a huge component of human nature. You can't define art because it's a feeling and an impulse that comes from an inner place in the human soul and it existed even before the idea of definitions or written or spoken languages. Art uses modern tools, but it always existed. Humanity is defined by art, not the other way.
 

marred

Member
Year 1600...
This was art: http://www.historyofpainters.com/caravaggio.htm
This was science: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

Year 2016...
Guess what still remains being what it was...

Art is one of the most powerful human expression. Artists can change the world, and they did it from the beginning of times. Art is essential, a huge component of human nature. You can't define art because it's a feeling and an impulse that comes from an inner place in the human soul and it existed even before the idea of definitions or written or spoken languages. Art uses modern tools, but it always existed. Humanity is defined by art, not the other way.
Yet you seem to have defined it quite eloquently.

Yes it uses modern tools but the most important and most ancient tool is the brain. Unfortunately that ancient tool in the hands of some is capable of some serious bullshit. But one of the jobs of art is to cut through that bullshit. Art needs bullshit like plants need fertiliser.
 

marred

Member
yes, obviously. science can be objectively measured and tested. that was about the worst comparison i can think of. if people just knew what art is, so many actually great artists wouldn't have gone to their deaths thinking they were nobodies because their art hadnt been recognized as such in their lifetimes. in all the books i've ever read on the subject i've never heard one single definition of art, nor have i ever heard an artist before claim they know what it is. rather, i think, the most we can say about art is that, like some judge said in a famous pornograpy case, we "know it when we see it"--which is a much different thing than saying we "know what it is" in general. saying we know what art is in general hints at the idea that art has somehow been contained. saying we know it when we see it, suggests that the viewer, not just the artist, also has a role in determining what art is--and thus, just because you've arrogantly given yourself the title "artist", doesnt mean you know what art is anymore than a non-artist. but whatever. i have to remember that it was with the same unwarranted arrogance that marred claimed him/herself to be an artist and to know what art is, that he/she also sought to give an erroneous grammar lesson. we can only hope that he/she is a better artist than grammarian.
For future posts you could use a lot less words and still achieve the same minimal impact. Maybe you could throw a few capitals and apostrophes in there too if you want to bring up the rule of grammar.
 

marred

Member
Except science can be described pretty much accurately, the disciplines, etc. Art can't be. See my original comment: peopel tried to define ''art'' for centuries, they couldn't. It's even more difficult now, so I still think it's arrogant. If you are an artist indeed, let your audience decide if what you do is art or not.
Artists have had to deal with morons for centuries. That hasn't changed and never will. There will always be artists and people who aren't artists trying to tell them what art is. The word artist actually has the word art in it. It's a subtle clue, but it's there for all to see.
 

rifke

ladies bear (inquire within)
Year 1600...
This was art: http://www.historyofpainters.com/caravaggio.htm
This was science: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

Year 2016...
Guess what still remains being what it was...

Art is one of the most powerful human expression. Artists can change the world, and they did it from the beginning of times. Art is essential, a huge component of human nature. You can't define art because it's a feeling and an impulse that comes from an inner place in the human soul and it existed even before the idea of definitions or written or spoken languages. Art uses modern tools, but it always existed. Humanity is defined by art, not the other way.
um people dont paint like that anymore, word to the wise, and if they did they'd be considered mediocre. art doesnt go in circles, it is constantly evolving, constantly redefining itself. didn't morrissey say something about there being no point to art if it didnt astound? well someone did. if people were still painting like the old masters it would hardly astound. do you or anyone know where art will be in a hundred years? no. just like no one could've predicted james joyce's ulysses or how it would change the course of the novel, no one can predict art. people can however, fairly accurate predict the direction in which science is evolving.
 

rifke

ladies bear (inquire within)
For future posts you could use a lot less words and still achieve the same minimal impact. Maybe you could throw a few capitals and apostrophes in there too if you want to bring up the rule of grammar.
if other people can state who can reply to them and who cant, then so can i. please dont reply to me anymore.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I don't have a problem with you thinking it's arrogant. Audiences and purveyors of art can voice their opinions and they are all more than welcome to do so but opinions are not the final word and a non artist will not be deciding if an artist's work is art or not. That is an insanely hilarious concept.
Artists have had to deal with morons for centuries. That hasn't changed and never will. There will always be artists and people who aren't artists trying to tell them what art is. The word artist actually has the word art in it. It's a subtle clue, but it's there for all to see.
What you're trying to talk about is a question of philosophy, not art.

But here's the thing: you purport to be an artist, not a philosopher, so your opinion can have no merit.

Beware argumentum ad verecundiam.
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
um people dont paint like that anymore, word to the wise, and if they did they'd be considered mediocre. art doesnt go in circles, it is constantly evolving, constantly redefining itself. didn't morrissey say something about there being no point to art if it didnt astound? well someone did. if people were still painting like the old masters it would hardly astound. do you or anyone know where art will be in a hundred years? no. just like no one could've predicted james joyce's ulysses or how it would change the course of the novel, no one can predict art. people can however, fairly accurate predict the direction in which science is evolving.
I don't know. Predictions are overrated. They are a big constant failure in human history. I only dare to predict all predictions will be wrong at some extent.

Referring to art going in circles or just evolving, I believe you are referring to public appreciation of artworks. As you said before, some artists are valued out of their lifetime. Others are overvalued during their life and later forgotten. Others will never be considered artists.

What if John Kennedy Toole's mother had not found the copy of the manuscript of A Confederacy of Dunces and insisted in publishing it years after the suicide of the author? Did he became an artist after the success of the novel? Was he an artist during his lifetime? How many good artists we are missing just now?
 

rifke

ladies bear (inquire within)
I don't know. Predictions are overrated. They are a big constant failure in human history. I only dare to predict all predictions will be wrong at some extent.

Referring to art going in circles or just evolving, I believe you are referring to public appreciation of artworks. As you said before, some artists are valued out of their lifetime. Others are overvalued during their life and later forgotten. Others will never be considered artists.

What if John Kennedy Toole's mother had not found the copy of the manuscript of A Confederacy of Dunces and insisted in publishing it years after the suicide of the author? Did he became an artist after the success of the novel? Was he an artist during his lifetime? How many good artists we are missing just now?
no, i was actually referring to the schools of art changing over time--evolving. when i say evolving, i dont mean to say that art is getting better, because that's simply not true. what i mean is that the great question of "What is Art?" is constantly expanding, growing broader, taking on new shape (which is why when someone says "i know what art is", the first thing i think is that this is someone looking back at art, at art through history, because someone looking forward couldnt and wouldnt very well say that, unless they're like perfectly in alignment with the zeitgeist, and who knows... maybe marred is, lol). the course art takes over time should be proportionate to it's expansion. look around... is anyone painting like the old masters today? or composing like beethoven today? no, of course not. why not? because it's been done. it's been reacted to or reacted against, and the world has moved on. there would be nothing to be got out of someone painting like caravaggio today. in and of itself, caravaggio is still good art, regardless of the fact that the world has moved on. not only is it good art, but it came around at just the right time, thus securing it a place in art history: so long as art history doesnt change, so long as certain universal human traits dont change, our appreciation of it also shouldnt change. so yeah, it's still art. yeah, that hasnt changed. but talking about a single piece of art in it's proper context is much different than talking about the dynamic, ineffable thing that is Art, whose nature is change, whose nature is to constantly resist conditions about "what it is" to be placed upon it.

anyway, sorry i was a bit snippy with you in my first post, i just find lending myself to art discussions around here has always proved to be a dispiriting affair. you're always diplomatic and nice to talk to.
 
M

Musician

Guest
I understand you and some others find it difficult. It's just that I don't.

I don't have a problem with you thinking it's arrogant. Audiences and purveyors of art can voice their opinions and they are all more than welcome to do so but opinions are not the final word and a non artist will not be deciding if an artist's work is art or not. That is an insanely hilarious concept.

I'd say the people who have been struggling with the concept of art over the years that a substantial portion of them are not artists themselves. The day I listen to one of those people will be a cold day in a hot place.
Not quite. Guess what: i'm an artist, too, still, i can think what I do is art, it is fairly arrogant to say ''i know what art is''. Your above arguement makes it even worse, qualifying an elite who can decide what art is? Or rather: if Psy declares what he does is art, is it? Or anyone displaying a piece of their excrement? If not, who decides whta art is?

Artists and critics struggle with the concept of art in the last decades. Surely, it's your right not to listen to them.
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
art1
ärt/
noun
noun: art; plural noun: arts; plural noun: the arts
  1. 1.
    the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
    "the art of the Renaissance"
    synonyms: fine art, artwork
    "he studied art"
    • works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
      "his collection of modern art"
      synonyms: fine art, artwork
      "he studied art"
    • creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.
      "she's good at art"
  2. 2.
    the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
    "the visual arts"
  3. 3.
    subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects).
    "the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible"
  4. 4.
    a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.
    "the art of conversation"
    synonyms: skill, craft, technique, knack, facility, ability, know-how
    "the art of writing"
Origin



sorry, couldn't resist. ;) :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Not quite. Guess what: i'm an artist, too, still, i can think what I do is art, it is fairly arrogant to say ''i know what art is''. Your above arguement makes it even worse, qualifying an elite who can decide what art is? Or rather: if Psy declares what he does is art, is it? Or anyone displaying a piece of their excrement? If not, who decides whta art is?

Artists and critics struggle with the concept of art in the last decades. Surely, it's your right not to listen to them.
Marred holds artists in very high esteem - other people are "morons", he says - and so his main interest in this conversation is having other people accept that he's an artist.

He asserts that only artists and he can know what "art" is because that allows him the reassurance that other people cannot tell him that what he does isn't actually art. By extension (and more importantly, for him), it affords him the belief that other people can't authoritatively tell him that he isn't an artist, after all. His whole sense of who and what he is seems pretty fragile.
 
Top Bottom