the Vorlon enjoy the order...
Today in Star Wars News
Modern abstract art was a tool used by the CIA to fight communism.
Interesting link, but that's not quite what the article says.
Modern abstract art was a tool used by the CIA to fight communism.
Interesting link, but that's not quite what the article says.
Ha! Still pretty interesting. Thanks for that.
the Vorlon enjoy the order...
What do you want?
Interesting link, but that's not quite what the article says.Modern abstract art was a tool used by the CIA to fight communism.
I am curious what you see as the salient difference between my summary and the article content.
Interesting link, but that's not quite what the article says.Modern abstract art was a tool used by the CIA to fight communism.
W...T...F...
What happened to this thread? It was going so well for like 4 comments.
I am curious what you see as the salient difference between my summary and the article content.Interesting link, but that's not quite what the article says.Modern abstract art was a tool used by the CIA to fight communism.
There's a kind of all/some fallacy here. What the article actually says is that the CIA paid money to stimulate modern art in the US. If you say that "modern abstract art was a tool used by the CIA to fight communism", one would conclude that Kazimir Malevich' work was an anti-communism tool, which would be historically ridiculous.
To illustrate with a counterexample: I'm sure that the CIA used cars and needed cars in their 'fight against communism', and that some money went to buying, maintaining and using cars. But the statement "the cars of the 1950s were a tool used by the CIA to fight communism" would be misleading to say the least. Cars were just vehicles, and they still are; anyone can use them and the fact that some find great use for them does not make them a tool specifically for that purpose. There were not millions of CIA tools driving around in Russia. In the same vein, modern art is modern art, not a tool of anyone.
In unrelated news, I saw the Bandai 1/72 Y Wing is for sale on eBay. A bit more expensive than their X Wing and TIE fighter kits at the moment, but I suspect that is because it's a new release. I've still got a couple of kits to finish before I get one, so hopefully the price has come down by then!
LORIEN: The universe began with a word. But which came first: the word or the thought behind the word? You can't create language without thought, and you can't conceive a thought without language, so which created the other, and thus created the universe?
I am curious what you see as the salient difference between my summary and the article content.
Interesting link, but that's not quite what the article says.Modern abstract art was a tool used by the CIA to fight communism.
There's a kind of all/some fallacy here. What the article actually says is that the CIA paid money to stimulate modern art in the US. If you say that "modern abstract art was a tool used by the CIA to fight communism", one would conclude that Kazimir Malevich' work was an anti-communism tool, which would be historically ridiculous.
To illustrate with a counterexample: I'm sure that the CIA used cars and needed cars in their 'fight against communism', and that some money went to buying, maintaining and using cars. But the statement "the cars of the 1950s were a tool used by the CIA to fight communism" would be misleading to say the least. Cars were just vehicles, and they still are; anyone can use them and the fact that some find great use for them does not make them a tool specifically for that purpose. There were not millions of CIA tools driving around in Russia. In the same vein, modern art is modern art, not a tool of anyone.
I'm deep diving on this because I find that I make statements that get misunderstood in ways that surprise me fairly often, and I'd like to reduce the frequency at which these events occur.
Your response implies to me that you don't see a meaningful difference between my statement of "Modern abstract art was a tool used by the CIA to fight communism." and "All modern abstract art was only ever a tool used by the CIA to fight communism." Is that an accurate assessment?
Your car analogy doesn't work for me, because while yes, the CIA had some cars, they (to my knowledge) didn't covertly funnel large amounts of money into Detroit for the express purpose of discrediting the viability of Russian industry. Buying a car because it's faster than taking the bus isn't nearly the same as turning Ford into a vehicle (ahem) for propaganda.
I'm deep diving on this because I find that I make statements that get misunderstood in ways that surprise me fairly often, and I'd like to reduce the frequency at which these events occur. Your response implies to me that you don't see a meaningful difference between my statement of "Modern abstract art was a tool used by the CIA to fight communism." and "All modern abstract art was only ever a tool used by the CIA to fight communism." Is that an accurate assessment?
But notice that even in a weaker form, the article presents a somewhat different picture. Avant-garde art in the 50s and 60s received money from the CIA, but the article makes it clear that this was not decisive for its success and there is no claim about how effective it was in the fight against communism. Reading the article, it struck me that modern art was everything but a CIA tool, in spite of the financial backing. Making the Soviet Union look bad seemed more like a hoped for side-effect.
Your car analogy doesn't work for me, because while yes, the CIA had some cars, they (to my knowledge) didn't covertly funnel large amounts of money into Detroit for the express purpose of discrediting the viability of Russian industry. Buying a car because it's faster than taking the bus isn't nearly the same as turning Ford into a vehicle (ahem) for propaganda.
If you feel you were misunderstood, it's a better idea to simply explain what you meant in clearer language. I read what you wrote, not what intent is behind it. In this case, the misunderstanding is your mistake because what you wrote apparently was not what you wanted to convey. There really is not point in going over something that, as it seems, doesn't reflect well what you believe anyway. "Sorry, what I meant to say was:...." seems the best option here.
I'm leaving it here, sorry to walk out, but the matter is done as far as I'm concerned.
the Vorlon enjoy the order...
What do you want?
The truth is a three edged sword, your side, their side and the truth.
Who put conspiracy theories in my Star Wars?
Who put conspiracy theories in my Star Wars?
The Sithluminati
the Vorlon enjoy the order...
What do you want?
The truth is a three edged sword, your side, their side and the truth.
No B5 quoting should ever go without:
"I am a Ranger.
We walk in the dark places no others will enter.
We stand on the bridge, and no one may pass.
We live for the One, we die for the One".
Also from Legend of the Rangers: - "We live for the one, we die for the one - but we don't die stupidly."
Someone else can post the shadows/vorlon quotes from the end of the shadow war. You know, when they are both in Sheridan/Delenn's head. - Actually never mind, the entirety of "Into the fire" is just too big and awesome to post here.
Edit: Just... this.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Babylon_5#Into_the_Fire
Edited by DariusAPB
Who put conspiracy theories in my Star Wars?
The Sithluminati
Shhhh don't you know loose mouth parts blows up ships?
No B5 quoting should ever go without:the Vorlon enjoy the order...
What do you want?
The truth is a three edged sword, your side, their side and the truth.
"I am a Ranger.We walk in the dark places no others will enter.We stand on the bridge, and no one may pass.We live for the One, we die for the One".
Also from Legend of the Rangers: - "We live for the one, we die for the one - but we don't die stupidly."
Someone else can post the shadows/vorlon quotes from the end of the shadow war. You know, when they are both in Sheridan/Delenn's head. - Actually never mind, the entirety of "Into the fire" is just too big and awesome to post here.
Edit: Just... this.
Never mention Legend of the Rangers again please.
The only good thing about that trash was we got to see G'Kar.
Who put conspiracy theories in my Star Wars?
The Sithluminati
Shhhh don't you know loose mouth parts blows up ships?
Loose mouth parts sink ship areas?
Loose lips sink ships
Loose lips sink ships
He gets me, only not all sentient's have lips and starships don't sink often so i was trying to be inclusive.
I want to engage enemy ships in low orbit or in the atmosphere of an ocean planet now just to sink them.
Legend of the Rangers may not have been A++ but it wasn't that bad. Had some good lines.
Edited by DariusAPBLegend of the raiders was pretty bad dude, it didn't fit the established universe at all.
That bit where she was kicking to fire the guns...you know how quickly you'd get tired in a fight over 10 minutes and die because your guns no longer fired.
And the spin off was also bad urgh even by 90's standards the effect were poor.
Legend of the raiders was pretty bad dude, it didn't fit the established universe at all.
That bit where she was kicking to fire the guns...you know how quickly you'd get tired in a fight over 10 minutes and die because your guns no longer fired.
And the spin off was also bad urgh even by 90's standards the effect were poor.
maybe...but as a Space Opera....the B5 was the prime example of awesomeness!....and yes...the quotes rock the boat of superb excellence!....cheers...
Ewan back in Obi Wan Trilogy?
maybe...but as a Space Opera....the B5 was the prime example of awesomeness!....and yes...the quotes rock the boat of superb excellence!....cheers...Legend of the raiders was pretty bad dude, it didn't fit the established universe at all.
That bit where she was kicking to fire the guns...you know how quickly you'd get tired in a fight over 10 minutes and die because your guns no longer fired.
And the spin off was also bad urgh even by 90's standards the effect were poor.
B5 was but the last movie which I'm talking about was not.