RIP 2010

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

What if you appreciate tacky in its own right. Is there such a thing as unintentional art? (Eg: the art of tacky?)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but there is the whole concept of Shabby Chic, or an appreciation of kitsch - usually those have a bit of tongue in cheek irony in their celebration, or an exploration of a specific sub-genre - e.g. pulp novel covers.

As for unintentional art there is certainly "found art" but these are usually non-art objects intended to be viewed as art, and there is art in nature, an appreciation of the aesthetics of a landscape, which unless you believe in God as creator, would be unintentional.

[RStar]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I disagree. Just like in fashion, there is good taste and no taste or just bad taste. It doesn't have to do with a statement such as "if you like the Talking Heads, you have good taste, and if you don't, you have terrible taste" but more to do with the breadth of music knowledge and the ability to see what is just simply awful music. I'm not saying that I have the ultimate taste in music because there are plenty of people who have a broad range of music knowledge and have explored a lot of genres and prefer completely different music than I do.

As with fashion or art, I appreciate people MORE when they have a decent knowledge of the art form. If they have that and continue to prefer schlocky crap, well, maybe they just have no taste.

I think clowns taste funny. So there....

[scaeagles]

Senator Robert Byrd, former member of the KKK.

[flippyshark]

Yes, sca, everybody knows. There was plenty of ugliness in the Dixiecrat worldview of the 40s. It hasn't disappeared entirely yet, I've learned, among some older white Dems here in the South. Racism is a disease without demographic or party boundaries, though Byrd was at least smart enough to know he had made a bad choice. Whether he ever repented in his true heart of hearts, I can't know.

[Alex]

I assume that in certain circles the death of Robert Byrd will be gleefully taken as an opportunity for vengeance for how many people gleefully greeted Jesse Helms's death.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Alex

I assume that in certain circles the death of Robert Byrd will be gleefully taken as an opportunity for vengeance for how many people gleefully greeted Jesse Helms's death.

I'm sure that's so, and it will do nothing to make this a better world. I didn't jump for joy then, and I'm not weeping now. (If some of the ensuing discussion accidentally becomes introspective and constructive, though, then yay.)

[Chernabog]

With Helms it was easy to gravedance because he never made bones about turning around. He was evil and intolerant until the end.

It may have only been for political reasons, but Byrd did, in some small degree. He voted for the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, for instance. Granted, he also said a lot of hateful, ignorant, stupid stuff about minorities and gays too.

I think I'm trying to say that I don't recally Helms having much by way of mitigating factors. (It's hard to think before morning coffee... must make cup now)

[scaeagles]

I always doubted his true repentance. He was using the N word in interviews....how along ago? Maybe 5-6 years? I forget exactly how long ago. He also has said he primary reason for joining the KKK in 1943 was their anti-communist stance.....I find that unlikely because at that point the commies were our allies in WWII. Even though he said he lost interest in it a year or so later, he was in leadership, and still voted agains the 1964 civil rights act.

Definitely political motivations. I personally believe the man was a racist through and through and never could quite understand why he was held in such high regard.

[Alex]

I have no reason to doubt Byrd's reversal on race issues (in the famous "******" quote he was to a fair extent making the same point Chris Rock used to in his act, just using language that won't fly from a senator). Plus the fact that it is difficult to change ingrained vocabulary, especially with words that were socially common until midlife. But if his reversal was calculating and true then I still don't really care if it can't be pointed out where his internal belief was allowed to have public impact.

My issue with Byrd is that it is insane that he was in office and if dying was the only way to resolve that, I'm ok with it. He could have had the good grace to wait a week though so the people of West Virginia wouldn't have to deal with what will be a huge amount of kerfuffle over the rules on how to replace him (his death is just six days short of a deadline after which the governor would just get to pick a replacement for the rest of his term).

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I always doubted his true repentance. He was using the N word in interviews....how along ago? Maybe 5-6 years? I forget exactly how long ago. He also has said he primary reason for joining the KKK in 1943 was their anti-communist stance.....I find that unlikely because at that point the commies were our allies in WWII. Even though he said he lost interest in it a year or so later, he was in leadership, and still voted agains the 1964 civil rights act.

Definitely political motivations. I personally believe the man was a racist through and through and never could quite understand why he was held in such high regard.

There is no question that he was motivated by fear and racism back in the day, and I share your doubts about his motivations for joining up with the Klan. He recanted repeatedly, and honestly, it doesn't much matter whether he meant it or not. He got in it for bad reasons and said and wrote things that rightly plagued him the rest of his days. His more recent comments, as Alex mentioned, were apparently meant to raise consciousness, but they were clumsy and probably a bad idea. I have never met anyone who thought Byrd blameless and totally wonderful. His history has always caused deep misgivings for me.

If you are really wondering why he was held in high esteem, well, go and read something other than the Washington Post. Even his Wikipedia entry will make clear why. He doggedly championed his views, which were sometimes conservative and sometimes liberal, so lots of people can say he was right some of the time.