#TDB20

[Hudini]

1. First, nothing is wrong with "preoccupation" with space exploration - it is much better than being preoccupied with exploitation and wars. As for keeping things at bay, well, until Chernobyl and Afghanistan, there was peace and safety in the entire country - including in Ukraine (which can not be said today, can it?)

2. I am not sure if I am happy with that Marooned video either, as it seems to be lining up with the nowadays so popular "blame Russia" propaganda. Otherwise why did not they focus on Japanese Fukushima disaster instead, as a great amount of radioactive water is being dumped into the ocean every second (and the plant can still explode any minute, as the melting rods have not been removed yet)? Or the oil sand excavation in Alberta, Canada, where huge lands covered by forests and meadows are being turned into moon-like landscapes?

3. Lastly, I would be hesitant to call that mural kitschy (I am an artist myself). It is a simple, symbolic, motivating - and if we look it with open minds: visually quite pleasing - piece with a positive message.

4. As for real kitsch, well, North America is over-flooded by them: those things are downright ugly and completely meaningless.

1. In my opinion, everything is wrong with preoccupation with anything. You can't live your life fully if you focus on just one aspect of it. And the Soviets were so focused on building their super-force image to the world that they most often neglected their internal policies. While they were sending people to the space, the masses were living in poverty. That led to Afghanistan, Georgia and other internal conflicts that ultimately dissolved the USSR. As for Chernobyl, I am pretty sure that someone at the power plant had to foresee the disaster, but then someone on top just waved it under the carpet because it would seemingly make the Soviets look irresponsible in front of the world. Unfortunately, I know how the leadership chain works in a socialist/communist state; I've lived in one.

2. I don't think the video blames Russia for anything. I can not speak in behalf of the creators of video, but I believe Pripyat was chosen over any of those other places for a number of reasons. First of all, Pripyat has long since become symbolic of negative consequences of playing with nature's force and some iconic sites of Pripyat, such as the Ferris wheel or the Olympic swimming pool have become instantly recognizable sites. Instead of having the audience wonder where the video was shot, they went with something most people would recognize as both a scenery and a symbol. Besides all that, today Pripyat is accessible to film crews (under strict limitations, that is) while Fukushima is not. I'm not sure about Alberta, though. So instead of using the stock footage (which is also the safer way to do it), they optioned for a more hands-on approach. And they can't be blamed for that.

3. I may not be an artist per se, but as an architect I had to take (and pass) courses in art history in order to earn that title, so I believe I know what kitsch is. General definition of kitsch is that it's a form of art that is visually pleasing for the tastes of the common population or deliberately designed to have popular appeal and has proportionally more aesthetic than artistic values, regardless of its meaning or symbolism. And I also believe that mural fits the definition quite nicely.

4. I don't really know what you're referring to, but if you refer to something as "downright ugly", then it's hardly kitsch. Kitsch is designed to be beautiful, at least to the masses, with rococo-emulating paintings as probably the best example. While there is no doubt that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, kitsch is what most people would call beautiful or at least cute.

But we're starting to wander so off-topic now...

[omeaeol]

1. While they were sending people to the space, the masses were living in poverty. That led to Afghanistan, Georgia and other internal conflicts that ultimately dissolved the USSR.

It was actually the West that started the Cold War (which is entering in its second phase as we speak) which eventually ruined the USSR. (You probably heard the mantra: "While the fat looses wight, the skinny dies by starvation."). As for poverty, while most of the population was poor by today's standard, generally speaking, no one was starving (or being in debt - at least that he/she could not pay back) in a socialist country (since the mid 50s). While those countries were no Paradise, education and health care were free, and unemployment and homelessness were known by only as entries in dictionaries.

As for Chernobyl, I am pretty sure that someone at the power plant had to foresee the disaster, but then someone on top just waved it under the carpet because it would seemingly make the Soviets look irresponsible in front of the world.

First, speculation is a poor substitute to facts. Second, you could have said exactly the same about Fukushima (only the motivation would be different in parts).

I'm not sure about Alberta, though.

Then it is time to fully open your eyes, my friend

And I also believe that mural fits the definition quite nicely.

The Arts have several subcategories - so different "rules" are applied for paintings than for banners/posters. That mural falls into the second category: it was deliberately made schematic and simple in order to reveal its message as clear as possible. It is colourful for the same purpose (colours attract attention + associated with optimism). Therefore it is not kitschy.

Dark coloured gargoyles and dragons - which promote depression, pessimism and anxiety -, even though neither colourful nor visually appealing, are today's kitsch.

While there is no doubt that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, kitsch is what most people would call beautiful or at least cute.

I agree with you completely: a "classic" ["old-fashioned"] kitsch is colourful, which most of the people would find beautiful (e.g., a gnome) as well - but by adopting today's ever darkening world, kitsch has eventually become dark and colourless.

I would argue over that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", though. I believe that beauty is absolute, and so independent from personal taste. It is just either recognized or not (today, most often: not). Even worse, nowadays ugly is confused with beauty - meaning that people no longer recognize, let alone appreciate, true beauty (for they less and less often introduced to beauty, hence they are loosing their sense - just like horses working in pitch-black mines went blind).

But we're starting to wander so off-topic now...

True and for the Moderators: sorry for that

[omeaeol]

1. While they were sending people to the space, the masses were living in poverty. That led to Afghanistan, Georgia and other internal conflicts that ultimately dissolved the USSR.

It was actually the West that started the Cold War (which is entering in its second phase as we speak) which eventually ruined the USSR. (You probably heard the mantra: "While the fat looses weight, the skinny dies by starvation."). As for poverty, while most of the population was poor by today's standard, generally speaking, no one was starving (or being in debt - at least that he/she could not pay back) in a socialist country (since the mid 50s). While those countries were no Paradise, education and health care were free, and unemployment and homelessness were known by only as entries in dictionaries.

As for Chernobyl, I am pretty sure that someone at the power plant had to foresee the disaster, but then someone on top just waved it under the carpet because it would seemingly make the Soviets look irresponsible in front of the world.

First, speculation is a poor substitute to facts. Second, you could have said exactly the same about Fukushima (only the motivation would be different in parts).

I'm not sure about Alberta, though.

Then it is time to fully open your eyes, my friend

And I also believe that mural fits the definition quite nicely.

The Arts have several subcategories - so different "rules" are applied for paintings than for banners/posters. That mural falls into the second category: it was deliberately made schematic and simple in order to reveal its message as clear as possible. It is colourful for the same purpose (colours attract attention + associated with optimism). Therefore it is not kitschy.

Dark coloured gargoyles and dragons - which promote depression, pessimism and anxiety -, even though neither colourful nor visually appealing, are today's kitsch.

While there is no doubt that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, kitsch is what most people would call beautiful or at least cute.

I agree with you completely: a "classic" ["old-fashioned"] kitsch is colourful, which most of the people would find beautiful (e.g., a gnome) as well - but by adopting today's ever darkening world, kitsch has eventually become dark and colourless.

I would argue over that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", though. I believe that beauty is absolute, and so independent from personal taste. It is just either recognized or not (today, most often: not). Even worse, nowadays ugly is confused with beauty - meaning that people no longer recognize, let alone appreciate, true beauty (for they less and less often introduced to beauty, hence they are loosing their sense - just like horses working in pitch-black mines went blind).

But we're starting to wander so off-topic now...

True and for the Moderators: sorry for that

[Hudini]

No worries, the mods around here are used to spam, and the way the forum's been quiet lately I think they'll tolerate it.

You know, a younger me would probably debate all this into infinity but I guess I'm getting old. Either that or I'm focusing myself on spending less energy on things that are not really important in life, such as internet debates.

We can agree on some accounts here, but I'm afraid that we'll mostly have to agree to disagree. Honestly, I believe that art can be deliberately made to be kitsch, just as much as find gargoyles and grotesques visually appealing. I guess it either proves my point of beauty being in the eye of the beholder, or it proves yours of beauty not being recognized by some people. Either way, it's the same thing as debating fate against free will, when both sides can be equally right or wrong as none can be empirically defined.

As for the socialist states... You know, poverty isn't the same thing as being deprived of money. I remember the old Yugoslavia fairly well and know for certain that socialist Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and even USSR for that matter, weren't pretty much different. Yes, the healthcare, the education, the social services, it was all free and accessible to everyone, you had to work hard to earn your wages and you had enough money to eat caviar and champagne all day every day, but there was rarely anything besides most basic groceries in store. It was like that until the mid-1980s when standards began to sink fast and by 1987 when the first McDonalds opened in Belgrade it was actually a matter of prestige to eat there. Tell me that's not poverty.

Nevermind that. If there's a good side to living through hard times, it's the knowledge that today is not that bad as it sometimes seems.

[omeaeol]

It was like that until the mid-1980s when standards began to sink fast and by 1987 when the first McDonalds opened in Belgrade it was actually a matter of prestige to eat there. Tell me that's not poverty.

But it was at the end of socialism (which was deteriorating since the middle of the 80's). So you practically prove my point

Otherwise I agree with you - one should not spend much time on Internet debates. They are never the same as having a good discussion in person. Sadly, it is going away (I mean, real human contacts.). This kind of communication possibility [Internet, cell phones, texting) opened up certain areas (which I am grateful for) - but it did on the account of limiting/eliminating other ones (which I am not happy about).

While I am glad to be able to buy whatever I want AND have the money for, I am longing for the old days, when everything was simpler. Not because I am not able to keep pace, but it is just too much. (For instance, when I was a kid - a long time ago - we only had two or three types of ice cream [chocolate, vanilla, and occasionally lemon]. Now you spend ten minutes in a shop just to decide as to which one of the 50 ice creams to get - which they differ from one another only by the proportions of the chemicals they are made of.) If we add it up, we could see that we probably spend many months in our whole life by confusingly wandering between the seemingly never-ending isles of super stores occupying a large city-block.

[Hudini]

But it was at the end of socialism (which was deteriorating since the middle of the 80's). So you practically prove my point

Only if you completely ignore my previous sentence, like you did.

Even at the height of socialism, during the 1960s and early 1970s, people had to go to Italy to buy jeans or to London to buy LP records, per instance. There just wasn't any in the country. And yes, everyone had enough money to travel, but you had to be politically correct to have a passport. One of the reasons socialism like that fell apart in the first place was that people were loaded with money with nothing to spend it on. That led to inflation and economy crises that ultimately ended in overthrowing of the regime in most socialist countries, with Romania being probably the most drastic example.

While I am glad to be able to buy whatever I want AND have the money for, I am longing for the old days, when everything was simpler. Not because I am not able to keep pace, but it is just too much. (For instance, when I was a kid - a long time ago - we only had two or three types of ice cream [chocolate, vanilla, and occasionally lemon]. Now you spend ten minutes in a shop just to decide as to which one of the 50 ice creams to get - which they differ from one another only by the proportions of the chemicals they are made of.) If we add it up, we could see that we probably spend many months in our whole life by confusingly wandering between the seemingly never-ending isles of super stores occupying a large city-block.

I completely agree on this. Those old days with limited choice were at least saving our time, if nothing else. Back then I'd buy my snack at a bakery on my way to school, and I had to choose between a bun or a pretzel. Today I take at least five minutes to choose from a bakery, or at least ten minutes if I'm at a supermarket. And that's ten minutes I'm never going to get back...

[HokiesCeltics]

Ok so I got curious and did a bing.com search for "Pink Floyd The Endless River Cover Art" went to images and nothing of interest came up until this caught my eye.



The pic description said "Pink Floyd The Division Bell - Happy 20th Anniversary!!!"
Have any of you seen this pic before and if so is there a story to go with it?

[UsNotThem]

That's not a genuine photo. The original photo was a Roger holding up a piece of paper saying thanks to someone who got a question correct on Roger's Facebook page. It's from about 2010, I think.

[Keith Jordan]

Indeed, you can tell it has been Photoshopped by Roger's fingers on the left there.

[HokiesCeltics]

Ah ok, because at first glance I said that's photo shop and assumed Rogers face was pasted then upon further viewing it looked like a legit picture of Roger holding something then my excitement got the best of me. And because of the way Roger has changed and become a cheerful old man and seems to have buried the hatchet with David and Nick it wouldn't have surprised me if he would do something like that for a good laugh.