You can’t get anything from the void and hypocrisy, but you can’t get anything from the mediocrity and emptiness of criticizing the void.
Editor’s note: This article is from “Look at the ideal” (WeChat public ID: ikanlixiang), author: Hou Chen.
Li was born again, and this time it is no longer a slogan of the “golden sentence” style, but a large paragraph of holistic discourse. It may be far more than the sum of the previous words.
In the highly praised and controversial stage of the singularity, and the highly acclaimed “debate of the gods” Huang Zhizhong confronted, Li Xuan was completely crushed and won all the colors. In this context, this “debate” is not burning. Will not work.
Under this enthusiasm, everything is like the conversation between Xu Zhiyuan and Ma Dong. Everything is just like the conversation between the decent and the frankness of all the whitewashes in our lives.
01In the face of this debate,What do I say?
In order to launch my point of view most directly, I intend to start by facing this issue.
If I am Huang Zhizhong, how will I face it? The art gallery is on fire, save the famous painting or save the cat?
I will be angry. Not doing anger for the stage effect, I am really angry.
Some topics can be discussed, and some topics are not. Not because this is a debate field, we can put everything out to show its “different perspectives.” For example, the square “the high efficiency of the massacre is a kind of evil”, and the anti-party “the high efficiency of the massacre has nothing to do with good and evil.” This is an issue that cannot be discussed.
Save the famous painting or save the cat. The program group raised this debate and discussed it through internal layers.It may also be smug that this is a good debate that can cause problems and collisions. Then no one in the audience was angrily left, and no one of the debaters was furious. This is a massacre of art. This is a massacre of human values.
It may be a collective act of the most degrading art in human history since the birth of distant rock paintings, where art classics begin to compare with the life of a cat.
Like Li said in his argument that Da Vinci would have moved to tears if he knew that his painting saved a cat. He can only say that he is a consistent slogan of talk show actors. Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo are not only the two most arrogant masters of the Renaissance Florence, Da Vinci’s love for the Mona Lisa is hard to say. Even after the painting has been completed, Da Vinci is still excusing to continue to improve the details and to leave the painting for a longer time in order to delay delivery. If he knows that this painting is a torch for saving a cat, he is afraid that even the coffin board will be broken.
If you are rude, the artist can even give up his life for his work, even if it is the life of a cat?
We revisit the literature of the golden age, in all the prophetic predictions, for the continuation and preservation of the great culture of civilization, people go on and offer their own lives. And today, in a set-up debate, a famous painting needs to be taken in conjunction with the life of a cat.
This is how timid and arrogant.
We lived in a time when nihilists needed to be careful to hide themselves, and they needed to be ashamed to reveal their emptiness. To this day, we can live in a nihilism that can be popular, but instead can ridicule the era of sarcastic idealists.
This shouldn’t be irritating, shouldn’t it be blushing?
At this time, when we talk about decent, the value of a famous painting can be compared with the life of a cat, the value of human beings has been completely negated. Where else do we get “decent”?
02A disguised idealist
Don’t be jealous, I am not a person who hates animals. I have cats for a long time. I care about cats and cats. I keep cats like me. But I also understand very well that I love my cat again. Compared with the value of a world famous painting, it is almost completely comparable in scale and manner. If I sacrifice my cat, plus the sculpture that I can save La Ocon not to be destroyed, I will not leave.
Therefore, Huang Zhizhong made a big mistake. He is not wrong in the debate. He is talking about the high level in the elite to hear the so-called “far crying.”
His “big mistake” is that he does not understand the value of art works –
He has no resonance with art works, so he can only describe the “poor” of art works with inappropriate metaphors. He hopes to describe the works of art more pitifully than a cat and win the sympathy of the audience. Therefore, if people have more “advanced” sympathy, they should be more sympathetic to art.
God, as a nihilist of this era, is there a qualification for sympathy for art? Sympathize with yourself.
Li Huan as a nihilist is still good luck, then when you look at the reader as a nihilist, when deconstructing and “don’t care”, which one is not lamenting that the fortunes are not good, the world is unfair, the people around are stupid, and the society is too sinister. have to accept ordinary, willing to be mediocre.
Standing in this position, a poor cat is still qualified. Poor a famous painting, how to match?
The statue of David was born in Michelangelo’s chiseling moment, in which the power and spirit of condensation in the chisel, fearing that a mediocre person could not be born once in his life. Even if the statue of David is now badly ground to powder, the spectators can regret it, but sympathy? How to match?
So when Huang Zhizhong said that we want to listen to the “distant crying” of Bada Shanren, I think this is his big mistake. Bada Shanren wants to cry for this. It is also crying for the destruction of the work. Is it because we cry for us? You can imagine that you have made a model at home, smashed by a bear child, and you cry because of your hard work. The bear child suddenly began to say, I really sympathize with you, I heard your crying. What is your mood?
Would you like to assemble a rough model, Da Vinci’s painting Mona Lisa? We sympathize with Da Vinci? How to match?
If a person really has an ideal for art works, it should have been clear for a long time. The value of famous paintings is that it is a glorious moment of human history. It is the essence of the continuation of humanity from generation to generation. It begins to compare it with a cat. Who is more pitiful, high in the land, we can be compassionate as a gesture. This kind of gesture is already a big insult to art works. From this perspective, what about ideals?
I hate false idealists more than nihilists, because it is precisely them, these decent people who don’t care, making the ideals more and more awkward.
03Artless Ages
Do I hate nihilism? I hate that they talk about value, but often reveal their despicable colors.
The beginning of Li’s birthday made me angry, and art is to live in people’s hearts? What is the reason? I don’t want to express anger emotionally here, let me give you an example.
ifArt is to live in our hearts, probably by “concept” and “expression”. I can say: Turner’s series of storm paintings show people’s “resilience.” I can even tell you that Turner used the captain to tie himself to the mast to experience the storm. This is “resilient” from both the story and the semantics.
Snow Storm- Steam-Boat off a Harbour’s Mouth, exhibit 1842
Joseph Mallord William Turner, 1775-1851 | Tate
Can such a memory have any effect on you? Do you really understand what “resilientness” is because of the concept of “toughness” or the story of Turner, or is it a more resilient person?
May you have seen it before, or you can search for Turner’s painting now, and watch his paintings on your huge 6.5-inch screen. I dare say you don’t have any feelings.
I know what you might think. Do I stand in the art gallery, do I have any feelings about Turner’s paintings?
I think you probably have the experience of going to the art gallery. If it is not because of the oddity or the need to cater to a certain “discourse system,” most people can hardly tell and have any dominant influence on the art work. I am afraid I can only use the “submattering” to whitewash it.
Isn’t Li’s birthday right? Anyway, we have never been influenced by art works. A cute cat at least gives us thoughtfulness and relief. It is better not to pretend to be a model. We admit that we are more likely to recognize a cat. Is it more “sincere”?
A scum male who hurts a girl, but frankly admits that he is a scum, or a rogue after beating you, frankly he is a rogue. Does this have any relief for you?
The people today have a huge misunderstanding of “sincerity”. It seems that sincereity has a connection with “exposing short” and “self-deprecating”. It may be precisely because “hypocrites” and “pseudo-idealists” are too much. The little villain even started to be cute.
But when we aestheticize a “little villain”, it is because there are thousands of miles apart. When a real villain directly hurts you because of his “little man” side, you can still think that it is “small.” People are cute?
I said in the previous article that nihilism never appears alone, and with utilitarianism, social Darwinism always comes out.
God, is our world still working? Read the articles of this article, I ask you, We said that as Li’s birthday, I have already lived in a way that is “selfish but not hurting others”, is it already “protecting the kittens and throwing the grandeur into the brain” After that, then, is our world really working? Has the world’s fire been extinguished?
We have not talked about the real grandeur. Is the debate on the web reduced? Is there less violence? Are we getting more and more stigma for others, or are we getting less and less?
Are you more afraid of valuable disputes, or are you even more afraid that even the value of the dispute is not there, people are almost free to arbitrarily blame others? Which fires were ignited by “true emotions” rather than “fake emotions” after radical nihilism?
Li Huai said in a self-deprecating manner on the show, “Can I talk about human beings?” But he talks about art is worthless, the world is not worth it, selfishness is the foundation of society, negative freedom is the cornerstone, value only Bring disaster. Which one is not talking about human beings on the largest scale?
Those who say that they don’t talk about grandness, don’t talk about human beings, who is not immediately swearing a set of grand and completely denying human rhetoric?
And Li said, we read “Qi Yu said”, can not remember the arguments, just remember that Huang Zhizhong is a good person. So I want to prove that the value does not exist. I feel that this is all polite. After reading “Qi Yu said”, you will not remember anything. This is not the value that does not exist. “Qi Yu said” can not accommodate the value, how can it prove that the value no longer exists.
The counterexample is a lot. I have always thought that Rousseau is a personal scum, but it is such a person who abandons his five children and that his child’s education is not carried out one day. He wrote “Ai Mier”, but I think that children’s education can’t be surpassed now. Works. This has nothing to do with people, but just value. What kind of lovely person is Plato? His deeds are even rare in his own writings. Do we remember Plato’s life or his work?
The horrible story of Li Huan’s words is not only his fieryness, but his gradual rise from “artless valuelessness” and finally he finally said “no value exists”.
This is not the impoliteness of Huang Zhizhong. This is the indecentness of all of us. Li’s humiliation is not only Huang Zhizhong, but not just famous paintings. Li’s birthday is fundamentally indifferent and humiliating through human values. The praise of the tsunami is touting everything that humiliates us.
This is not just a humiliation of words. This will translate into incomprehension between people, other people’s indifference to you, cyber violence, life confrontation, social thorough utilitarianism, money and success.