?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Lies, damned lies, and Darwin tours - click opera — LiveJournal
February 2010
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mon, Apr. 27th, 2009 01:11 pm
Lies, damned lies, and Darwin tours

29CommentReply


(Anonymous)
Mon, Apr. 27th, 2009 01:46 pm (UTC)

To think they fought to the bitter end and all the winner sporned was a lousy ureliable tour guide desperate to be an"Artist" and ending up a stand up comic. Better luck next time Momus. When you doing the comedy store?. I can see the Sacha Baron Cohen influence coming through by the way.


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Mon, Apr. 27th, 2009 02:53 pm (UTC)

Comedy is one of the greatest art forms. Do you watch Reeves and Mortimer and find yourself saying, 'I can see the Robert Filliou influence coming through'?

Or maybe you just have a moment of clarity and attempt to see beyond all those unhelpful artificial boundaries.


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Mon, Apr. 27th, 2009 05:54 pm (UTC)

"Do you watch Reeves and Mortimer and find yourself saying, 'I can see the Robert Filliou influence coming through'?"

No, I watch Reeves and Mortimer and think how on earth did they get a TV show. Besides I like to distinguish my Artists from my comedians although I might love both in equal measures.


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Mon, Apr. 27th, 2009 07:52 pm (UTC)

I apologise for the adversarial tone of my last comment, and I think that there is an interesting discussion here.

This isn't a loaded question; but why is it that you distinguish your artists from your comedians? What is the value of that boundary for you?


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Mon, Apr. 27th, 2009 08:21 pm (UTC)

The boundary is there, I merely acknowledge it. Some people may choose not to acknowledge it, that is their choice. How many people do you see rolling around on the floor laughing in front of a Picasso? I haven't seen any, so far. Comedians are out to make us laugh that is how they measure their success. An Artist scope is far wider encompassing all emotions, it can sometimes make us smile but not really laugh out loud.


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Mon, Apr. 27th, 2009 09:45 pm (UTC)

I think the boundary is a construct, along with the term 'comedian' and 'artist'; ways of categorizing experience. It is worth, once in a while, questioning these terms, if for no other reason than to avoid becoming mindless to their use. They can, after all, significantly affect the way we view our world.

Comedians can also stimulate our imagination (i'm thinking Vic & Bob again), show us ways of living, of interacting; they can politicize us (Charlie Brooker, and his thinly veiled rants); amongst other things.

It excites me when these boundaries (which mother Earth didn't place there for us) become blurred, especially when it comes to comedy and art.

By the way, which Picasso? And under what circumstances?


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Mon, Apr. 27th, 2009 11:45 pm (UTC)

All experience is categorized that is human nature. Otherwise we venture into madness. I think rather than worrying about it we should except the terms for what they are and enjoy the "comedy" or 'Art" for what it is without tedious distractions. It's only life after all. I can honestly say I've never seen any blurred boundary between a piece of Art that could be comedy or vice versa. Comedy can achieve all the things you mention I don't dispute that but it's eventual aim is to make you laugh.

Any Picasso, we're never likely to see one outside a gallery environment unless you have very rich friends, I don't.


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Tue, Apr. 28th, 2009 10:03 am (UTC)

And what if making you laugh is the secondary aim? What if the comedian himself isn't aware of his real 'aim'?


ReplyThread Parent