Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Tequilx_Wolf OP wrote (edited )

The concept of 'interpassivity' elaborated through this article is a useful one, imo.

8

temporary_ wrote

That sounds like a cool book, never heard about it before. But what did you expect from an hollywood movie? The whole industry is based on creating new unsustainable realities, as if our world wasn't already polluting enough.

4

deeppurplehazedream wrote

Sounds like Cultural Marxism. The culture industry as ideology/propaganda.

interpassivity in contemporary culture allows us to delegate our hopes, fears and desires for change to popular media, disempowering us and producing a fleeting feeling of empowerment in a single stroke>

key words disempowering and empowering

Don’t Look Up ends with several of the lead characters gathering around a table, holding hands and resigned to their fate. Instead of this fatalist, depoliticised acquiescence to the present, and even though it’s difficult to keep looking up when the late capitalist superhighway is speeding up in front of us, we should at least start looking around to find each other – because Netflix and chill will never be the basis for an effective environmentalist politics.

That is the question. What is "an effective environmentalist politics."

(Side note: I'm only against "Marxism" in the sense that they generally think the way to go (imo) is to get power first-then we'll dismantle it.)

3

Styx wrote

FYI: 'Cultural Marxism' (or, originally, 'Cultural Bolshevism') is an anti-semitic term used by the Nazis to discredit Jewish philosophers and cultural critics. These days, it's been reappropriated by the alt-right & co to discredit anything mildly woke.

Having said that, you are correct in saying that this whole empowering/disempowering way of thinking about art and culture is inherently Marxist. The problem, as I see it, is that it's underpinned by the belief that art can be revolutionary/political in the sense of transforming the masses into something more palatable. I would say that is just a pipe dream.

Art certainly can have an impact upon an individual and maybe even substantially change his/her/their political views (given they are privileged enough to access it), but it will never usher any significant political change (art can record them and reflect upon them, but not instigate them). For one, not everyone has a netflix subscription/cinema money to go see that film. Second, those who 'get it' are already on board with the whole 'climate crisis is a catastrophe' and are merely having their feelings validated. Those who think something like climate change is a matter of belief will never be convinced by a film (or a song, novel, w/e). So yeah, that's my five cents, I guess. Art's just entertainment that can sometimes be enlightening.

3

deeppurplehazedream wrote

FYI: 'Cultural Marxism' (or, originally, 'Cultural Bolshevism') is an anti-semitic term used by the Nazis to discredit Jewish philosophers and cultural critics.

I am aware of that.

The rest of what you say was sort of what I was trying to say, or at least get a little response to. So, thank you. You were much clearer and more articulate than I was, I think. I was just trying to give a little background.

My partner is a big, big movie buff, so just by osmosis I see parts of a lot of movies. Don't Look Up would not be even close to my "top 500" movies of all time. But, on the second, partial viewing, I thought a little better of it. The critics, if that means anything, are pretty evenly split (Rotten Tomatoes) whereas the audience is mid-70's for liking it.

I don't have time to develop this much as my bus is coming, but I suspect interpassivity, which I'm none to familiar with, is at least a little, suggesting maybe nihilist thinking has it's own problems as a "way to change the world". But really, what can you do with you're own "power" without turning it into some sort of violence? Mostly though, why I've been posting at all is to practice writing and hopefully getting a better understanding of my own thinking, and of course, the interaction of others. So, again, thanks.

4

Styx wrote

I thought the film was okay, but I don't plan to see it again. Quite impressed it mocked the tech billionaire guy, although, admittedly, only because the bar is so so terribly low these days anyway. The only thing I would change is the ending. I'd want to see the escapees die (either because the cryogenic machines didn't work, or because they got hit by the comet's debris). I understand that the point was that the rich get away with everything, but I don't think they'll get away with climate change (after all, who's going to cook for them, clean after them, build for them, etc.).

I only skimmed through the article because I have very little patience for this whole active/passive art consumption. All I got from it was that it tried to reinvent the good ol' idea of catharsis, except instead of emotional relief it focused on political validation. Which is fair, I guess. I just simply don't believe that art can really change anything, and I don't think any kind of praxis can do that either (and while I'm dispensing hot takes, can I also publically declare -- totally off-topic, but I need to get it off my chest -- that I really struggle to understand the sanctification of Mark Fisher; I genuinely don't get what people see in his texts).

If history is anything to go by, we are done. We only ever make nominal changes after the massive catastrophe and if anyone is going to survive climate change -- well, good luck to them! Trying to change the world sounds to me like Marxist megalomania.

4