|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted December 19, 2016 07:58 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:01, 19 Dec 2016.
|
I watched it, too. It's an exhibition in an art gallery, he isn't overwhelmingly protected, which is obviously a mistake. But it's not like, they allow the shooter to give a speech on purpose.
The shooter is probably one of Gulen's people, so of course he is brainwashed but what I mean is, this is not a fanatic who went rouge. Not everybody would be allowed in there (especially with a gun) in the first place. So, he's not your home-made jihadist.
Edit: Turns out he was a police officer, so this makes it almost certain he was one of Gulen's people.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 19, 2016 08:01 PM |
|
|
|
yes, this is what I underlined, he was not properly protected, which is quite disturbing, given the actual conflicts.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 19, 2016 08:03 PM |
|
|
Check edit, shooter was a police officer himself. They probably did the security check outside the building and that's how he passed.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted December 20, 2016 01:13 AM |
|
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 21, 2016 10:03 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2016 10:11 PM |
|
|
It helps, when you can read:
Quote:
Correction, Dec. 20, 2016: This post originally suggested that films that did not meet the diversity requirements would be ineligible for all BAFTA Awards. The requirements only apply to the Outstanding British Film or Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director, or Producer awards.
This fake news and sensationalist headlines problem is pretty observant. Of course the phenomenon isn't limited to sports.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 21, 2016 10:15 PM |
|
|
|
Ah ok, so then no problem if is only required for the Outstanding British Film or Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director, or Producer awards. They are noobs anyway so need other criteria than quality.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2016 10:59 PM |
|
|
|
Actually, they simply redefined the quality standards when it comes to outstanding British film or debut.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 21, 2016 11:11 PM |
|
|
Can I just point out when I first got in here, you two were the reason I stuck around, two people who produce ideas not fabricating them. And now, it is sad to see you like Beavis and Butthead!
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 21, 2016 11:11 PM |
|
|
|
Exactly, and now criteria absolutely external to artistic quality or creativity are required. I understand that an individual having the goal of defending and promoting minorities becomes politician, journalist, and even film maker if this is how he decides to defend his vision. But forcing artists to include politics -by promising a reward, into their artistic vision is somehow the end of freedom.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2016 11:41 PM |
|
|
Well, no, you could say it offers enough political correctness for artists to piss on it, which means it is a stimulus.
Why wouold anyone be swayed by this? IF someone was swayed it was because of a willingness to get a prize first and foremost - and what artistic value does that have?
And, artu, Beavis & Butthead being something of icons while Jolly & Salamandre being pretty anonymous - what's wrong with being like B&B?
Hehehe.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 21, 2016 11:55 PM |
|
|
Well, I exaggerated to make a point. But you were both really more than interesting to stick around just to read. You still are, except when confronted with each other, you both try to ram each other, rather than being the originally interesting persons you are.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 21, 2016 11:55 PM |
|
|
yeah, or you can also try to step away from any formatting patterns and political bull, correctly teach arts and acting, create true artists regardless of color, which every producer will rush to hire because they will simply transcend the movie.
But that would be too much to ask from people who are obviously only fussing about having a LGBT actor (not character!) for 9 straight minutes, because 8 minutes would definitely not show enough the joy of diversity.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 22, 2016 08:56 AM |
|
|
Look, Salamandre, I would usually be more polite, but actually you just spread misinformation, yet again - probably not even knowingly, because you read BLOGS and not serious journalism.
This
paints a much clearer picture, and you can inform you here, that it's mostly about changing the jury membership (or actually adding to it in a more diverse way, representing minorities). Also, there is another, a third change: Quote:
The third change is removal of the requirement for a proposer and seconder to apply for membership from 2017. According to a statement, this has “the aim of ensuring that it’s only talent, and not also who you know, that enables Bafta membership”
.
Now, the elephant in the room is this: Quote:
The most direct change is in the eligibility criteria for two of its award categories: outstanding British film; and outstanding debut by a British writer, director or producer (won in 2016 by, respectively, Brooklyn, and Naji Abu Nowar and Rupert Lloyd for Theeb). Bafta has now instituted a requirement that, from 2019, films put forward must conform to the BFI’s Diversity Standards, which were established in 2014 to increase participation and representation of minorities and socially disadvantaged in British film.
Thankfully, the article also links to said standards - which, as is noted, have to be fulfilled for productions applying for state backer money for their production: standards
This in turn also links to the actual standards.
So there are 3 standards, and a production has to fulfill 2 of those, with each standard having a couple of options and being fulfilled when some of them are met.
Summing that up with Quote:
If you want your movie to get a prize, before any script,first hire actors of color, there will be no other way.
is akin to lying for effect's sake. You do that all the time.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 22, 2016 10:18 AM |
|
|
Is this an answer to my previous post about art justification and triggers or just skipping it and returning to your usual rants because you are typically clueless on art as for you it is (I quote) "entertaining activity"?
I exposed an article and gave it the title it was describing, with a proper link to the article I quote, so everyone can make his idea, make his own research then argue, so stop suggesting that I lie.
The bottom line is that, from 2019, the movie receiving the award of being the BEST British movie of the year, will be first viewed in rapid scrolling by some politically oriented jury, and they will count minutes and fill specific cases on a paper about the importance and length of roles played by minorities, both ethnic and sexual. Then only when this criteria is fulfilled, they will finally watch again the movie, for what it represents, a movie. Is this what we define when calling "the best movie"? Certainly not, but also the best movie doesn't exclude having minorities in, if author decides it. Freedom is the word we redefine here.
Art can be used for all kind of things. Humans used it since past times to express all kind of stuff: love, complex feelings, dreams, perceptions and -why not, even political ideologies. What we call good art usually is the one managing to optimally communicate the author's message, not the message in itself. We don't bow in front of Beethoven's nine because it talks about uniting peoples, but because the quality of the music matches and even transcends the message behind. We don't bow in front of Sistine Chapel painted ceilings because it represents supposedly nude gays but because the grace and the harmony of proportions radiates and it continues to captivate the modern viewers. Can you imagine some competition for the best fresco, back in time, where a painter as Leonardo or Raphael are skipped because not enough "this or that" in their art? How would look art through history if it was the political correctness deciding what to represent and for how long?
Those are questions raising from such decisions, and for one who spend a large part of his life in, I worry about. Also I am happy to see you twirling as usual, always advocating "let everyone do whatever he wants", and now has no problems with "from now you do what we say you to do if want to succeed". because this is what is about. Well, in art, this proved to be catastrophic, the entire soviet era art proves it. But what would you know.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 22, 2016 11:36 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:37, 22 Dec 2016.
|
Salamandre said:
Can you imagine some competition for the best fresco, back in time, where a painter as Leonardo or Raphael are skipped because not enough "this or that" in their art? How would look art through history if it was the political correctness deciding what to represent and for how long?
Not that I disagree with you in general about the issue but this is a very very bad example. Artists of that time had much less freedom compared to today. "The political corectness" was determined by the Church which they were mostly directly taking orders from, it wasnt much different when they were painting for a rich family either. Art for art's sake is a concept of the Romantic Period, before that, the old masters mostly saw themselves as craftsman.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 22, 2016 11:50 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
I exposed an article and gave it the title it was describing, with a proper link to the article I quote, so everyone can make his idea, make his own research then argue, so stop suggesting that I lie.
The article is crap, and your summary of it: Quote:
If you want your movie to get a prize, before any script,first hire actors of color, there will be no other way.
is a lie, because it's not true. Stating something that is untrue is a lie, in this case a lie for effect's sake.
Additionally, not only is your idea of art smugly elitist, as we have already established, you also seem to think that organizations handing out prizes should do it exclusively with your smugly elitist idea of art in mind. In the actual case, the BAFTA links SOME of their awards they give for "outstanding" works to the condition that SOMETHING concerning those, and that MAY include the staff, but doesn't have to must represent the actual social diversity of the existing British society - in other words, they would like a certain social accuracy.
I'm quite certain you did not take a look at the actual standards - if you did, you wouldn't suggest nonsense like this: Quote:
The bottom line is that, from 2019, the movie receiving the award of being the BEST British movie of the year, will be first viewed in rapid scrolling by some politically oriented jury, and they will count minutes and fill specific cases on a paper about the importance and length of roles played by minorities, both ethnic and sexual. Then only when this criteria is fulfilled, they will finally watch again the movie, for what it represents, a movie.
- which entirely concocted by you; no, you just read a blog that fits into your views, sum things up with an utterly polemic and untrue sentence, and there we have made another bogeyman.
I call this dishonesty, and it's typical for you.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 22, 2016 01:33 PM |
|
|
artu, give me one example of renaissance artists or baroque composers having to include in their artworks the political correctness (of that period of course).
JJ. You give me links, I read them. Your links say:
Films applying for money from British state backer must sign up to new policies on minorities and the socially disadvantaged
You insisted on the state financial funding. Now let me educate you on some aspects concerning artists finance. Every time an artist is producing himself, he isn't payed by the state, but he MUST pay to the state, beside the tax system. Fortunately I am myself organizer for young musicians (but could be anything else, painters, poets, sculptors) to make a step into career difficulties so I can show how this looks administratively and why the financial baker by the state should be without any condition.
What you see on right column is what I have to pay to the state, as organizer:
So I want to help someone to produce in concert. First I must rent the concert room, so the one renting the room will already include in his annually taxes the part of the sum I gave him. Then I have to pay the interpreter. He will also be accountable for this is his annually tax. Then I have to pay to the state, so it gives me the right to organize such event, and the following is showing -in this case- that it costs me 159 euros (out of room rent), when the interpreter gets only 87 euros for his performance. 72 euros go to the state, but also the state will tax both interpreter and room renter for the sum they perceived. People think that when -lets say, a pianists produces in concert, state pays him for keeping culture standards. Heh no, is the opposite.
if you look closely at first screen, you see in second line "contribution solidarity artists". So an artist pays the state so the state can put that money back for financing other artists. Now, telling me that movies (art) financed by the state have to respect state political criteria to get money, while now we know that artists finance the state, is purely scandalous. We finance the state by our work, we are not payed in return (except private funds) then the state threatens to cut financial aid if we don't kneel.
Entire document showing one artist journey for producing culture HERE So you can translate and check my claims.
Then:
Ben Roberts, director of the BFI Film Fund, said in a statement: "The 'three ticks' approach incentivises good practice and helps to embed diversity across every area of a film’s production, whilst being flexible enough to allow productions to make positive choices. Ideally we want to see the industry embracing the three ticks approach to ensure that the most talented are able to progress and succeed, whatever their background."
What this says, through the lines? That producers shot themselves in the feet by not hiring artists from minorities, does that means producers are "racists"? On what this is backed?
All this soup is about mediocre people from diversity moaning about not being able to make a career, thus forcing the hand through political correctness. This is politics forcing on art freedom, as simple as that. And financially is a humbug, the artists are simply stripped of their most basic rights. Read again my first post about creating good artists and actors as alternative. Is not elitist, is the standard used in history, while what you back is amateurism and we see what it did.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 22, 2016 01:51 PM |
|
|
What do you mean "one example?" What you could and could not paint was determined by the Church in ANY case and you could never go outside their understanding of what is blasphemous or not. No blasphemy is the political correctness of the age.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 22, 2016 02:07 PM |
|
|
|
Well, give me then an example where the church used its repressive system for prohibiting an artist to express blasphemy views. For example, the self portrait of Durer or the fact that Da Vinci's Virgin on the Rocks has no halo. Considered as blasphemy by the church, yet it is there, not prohibited, not destroyed.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
