Homosexuality and Culture

[Valgora]

Because he thinks that art is not that important to culture.

It's not compared to its other aspects. To say otherwise is to be superficial.

He also says that it's just pretty pictures despite me showing that only the visual arts aspect is the "pretty pictures" part.

Like I said, they're caught up on technicalities.

Art is not less important to culture. Art is very important to culture.

And I'm not caught up on technicalities.
Saying that performance arts and literature are not ways of painting pretty pictures ain't focusing on technicalities.

Homosexuals like Rob Halford of Judas Priest have contributed to culture with their music.

(there, the argument is somewhat on topic now.)

[Mardla]

I've seen Walt Whitman brought up. It is true he incorporated his homosexuality into his poetry
However I think his poetry was harmful, it has the quality of a Rousseauan fetishizing of nature that borders on delirium. But regardless he doesn't try to make homosexuality an imitation of heterosexuality, let alone caricature it.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It's not compared to its other aspects. To say otherwise is to be superficial.

Like I said, they're caught up on technicalities.

Art is not less important to culture. Art is very important to culture.

The two are not mutually exclusive statements.

And I'm not caught up on technicalities.

Yes you are.

Saying that performance arts and literature are not ways of painting pretty pictures ain't focusing on technicalities.

Yes it is. I'm not going to say,"Pretty pictures, pretty sounds, and pretty words." I'm just going to say,"Pretty pictures,"and it will be saying the exact same thing as the former statement.

Homosexuals like Rob Halford of Judas Priest have contributed to culture with their music.

Again, a superficial aspect.

[Major-Tom]

Oh, who fucking cares?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Oh, who fucking cares?

Nobody.

[Valrifell]

It's an irrational position, you can not find a logical reason to not like it other than "I don't like them"

Sure, you could argue that they're not reproducing or whatever, but it's a subset of a subset of the population doing that, so it's statistically irrelevant.

You're attempting to conflate using logic for an argument with me saying an argument is a logical fallacy. If you had bothered to read the fallacy he committed, you would not have wasted your time with this.

If you dont have a rationale supporting your argument I dont expect you to demand others are so logically pure. You're essentially holding outside ideas to higher standards than ones you hold already.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You're attempting to conflate using logic for an argument with me saying an argument is a logical fallacy. If you had bothered to read the fallacy he committed, you would not have wasted your time with this.

If you dont have a rationale supporting your argument I dont expect you to demand others are so logically pure. You're essentially holding outside ideas to higher standards than ones you hold already.

"It's okay if I'm a hypocrite if you are too!"

[Valgora]

Art is not less important to culture. Art is very important to culture.

The two are not mutually exclusive statements.

And I'm not caught up on technicalities.

Yes you are.

Saying that performance arts and literature are not ways of painting pretty pictures ain't focusing on technicalities.

Yes it is. I'm not going to say,"Pretty pictures, pretty sounds, and pretty words." I'm just going to say,"Pretty pictures,"and it will be saying the exact same thing as the former statement.

Homosexuals like Rob Halford of Judas Priest have contributed to culture with their music.

Again, a superficial aspect.

You're downplaying the importance of art in culture.

I am not caught up on technicalities.
And performance art is more than just "pretty sounds", music is more than just "pretty sounds". Literature is more than just "pretty words".

Art ain't a superficial aspect.

Homosexual musicians (like Freddie Mercury and Rob Halford) have contributed to culture with their music. You're downplaying their contributions by labeling it as "superficial".

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Art ain't a superficial aspect.

Homosexual musicians (like Freddie Mercury and Rob Halford) have contributed to culture with their music. You're downplaying their contributions by labeling it as "superficial".

Yeah, it's pretty superficial. And as much as I like both Freddie Mercury and Rob Halford's stuff, their works are no exception.

[Valgora]

Art ain't a superficial aspect.

Homosexual musicians (like Freddie Mercury and Rob Halford) have contributed to culture with their music. You're downplaying their contributions by labeling it as "superficial".

Yeah, it's pretty superficial. And as much as I like both Freddie Mercury and Rob Halford's stuff, their works are no exception.

Art is not superficial. You don't have much of a culture without art.
Therefore, Freddie Mercury's and Rob Halford's work ain't superficial and of low importance, since their contributions are in the realm of art which is very important.

[Aboveland]

Homosexuality has no bearing on our ability to create art. Because all homosexual means is "attracted to the same sex." Someone's ability to create art isn't dependent on that. Same with heterosexuality, really.

That said? Someone's life as a homosexual in a heteronormative society will certainly inform their art. Their homosexuality won't inform their skills in creating it, but content certainly will be influenced by lived experiences.

But you don't know this as true, because it isn't. I've written short stories that have had nothing at all to do with homosexuality in a heteronormative environment. Does this mean I haven't made art, because my homosexuality hasn't influenced it? None of what you say is certain; your argument considers that a homosexual person's art, if they live in a heteronormative society, always influences what they make. Does this mean that all gay artists have going for themselves is that they're gay, and that's the only reason their work is/would be significant to LGBT people?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yeah, it's pretty superficial. And as much as I like both Freddie Mercury and Rob Halford's stuff, their works are no exception.

Art is not superficial. You don't have much of a culture without art.

Prove it then.

I can tell you that religion, philosophy, beliefs, attitudes, and norms play a large role in culture; that's simply common sense, since we have had our entire history shaped by such things; but can you tell me how art matches these aspects of culture in importance?

[Kaiserreich Subreddit]

Art is not superficial. You don't have much of a culture without art.

Prove it then.

I can tell you that religion, philosophy, beliefs, attitudes, and norms play a large role in culture; that's simply common sense, since we have had our entire history shaped by such things; but can you tell me how art matches these aspects of culture in importance?

Art represents those ideas visually

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Prove it then.

I can tell you that religion, philosophy, beliefs, attitudes, and norms play a large role in culture; that's simply common sense, since we have had our entire history shaped by such things; but can you tell me how art matches these aspects of culture in importance?

Art represents those ideas visually

Thank you for proving my point that it is a superficial aspect of culture.

[Kaiserreich Subreddit]

Art represents those ideas visually

Thank you for proving my point that it is a superficial aspect of culture.

What?

[Valgora]

Art is not superficial. You don't have much of a culture without art.

Prove it then.

I can tell you that religion, philosophy, beliefs, attitudes, and norms play a large role in culture; that's simply common sense, since we have had our entire history shaped by such things; but can you tell me how art matches these aspects of culture in importance?

When people think of culture, on of the first things they are likely to think of is art from that culture - whether it is visual arts, performance arts (especially music and dance), or literature.

Arts are a cultural universal. That means that they are present in practically every culture worldwide. Perhaps, this could be possibly attributed to the need of storytelling.

Art can absolutely have an affect on what you mentioned; especially the beliefs, attitudes, and norms. And art also can serve as an expression of those things that you have mentioned and is therefore affected by it as well.

Art is just as important as the things you listed.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Prove it then.

I can tell you that religion, philosophy, beliefs, attitudes, and norms play a large role in culture; that's simply common sense, since we have had our entire history shaped by such things; but can you tell me how art matches these aspects of culture in importance?

When people think of culture, on of the first things they are likely to think of is art from that culture - whether it is visual arts, performance arts (especially music and dance), or literature.

Usually when people go,"The first thing people think of when they think of X is Y,"they're demonstrating a point that the way they think about it is not entirely correct. That's the case here; except in this case you are the people who think of art when they think of culture.

Arts are a cultural universal. That means that they are present in practically every culture worldwide. Perhaps, this could be possibly attributed to the need of storytelling.

I like how you included the phrase "practically," because it just shows that it is not technically a prerequisite of culture. Ironic considering your earlier insistence on semantics.

Art can absolutely have an affect on what you mentioned; especially the beliefs, attitudes, and norms.

People can be moved by pretty pictures, yes. More often than not, however, the reverse is true. Nobody was ever inspired to go to war or start a movement over art; it was always every other aspect of culture.

And art also can serve as an expression of those things that you have mentioned and is therefore affected by it as well.

Hence why I say it is a superficial aspect. Because it is.

Art is just as important as the things you listed.

Nah, as I just explained.

[Valgora]

When people think of culture, on of the first things they are likely to think of is art from that culture - whether it is visual arts, performance arts (especially music and dance), or literature.

Usually when people go,"The first thing people think of when they think of X is Y,"they're demonstrating a point that the way they think about it is not entirely correct. That's the case here.

Arts are a cultural universal. That means that they are present in practically every culture worldwide. Perhaps, this could be possibly attributed to the need of storytelling.

I like how you included the phrase "practically," because it just shows that it is not technically a prerequisite of culture. Ironic considering your earlier insistence on semantics.

Art can absolutely have an affect on what you mentioned; especially the beliefs, attitudes, and norms.

People can be moved by pretty pictures, yes. More often than not, however, the reverse is true. Nobody was ever inspired to go to war or start a movement over art; it was always every other aspect of culture.

And art also can serve as an expression of those things that you have mentioned and is therefore affected by it as well.

Hence why I say it is a superficial aspect. Because it is.

Art is just as important as the things you listed.

Nah, as I just explained.

My point was that people thought of art when talking about culture, because that is what people do.

---

I used the word "practically" to keep from saying that it is present in every culture due to my apparent innate unwillingness to say something so absolute in most situations.
However, I could probably just go with the idea that art is present in all cultures worldwide since that's what it says on Wikipedia.

I was also not focused on semantics earlier.

---

You didn't get my point. Art has an affect on things like beliefs, attitudes, and norms. At the same time, art is affected by it since it also serves as a visual representation of them and other aspects of the culture.
Visual representation (and similar forms of representation) is important.

Art can also have a major impact on people.
For example: part of my identity is based off of music, which also influenced my beliefs and attitudes.

[Oil exporting People]

You're attempting to conflate using logic for an argument with me saying an argument is a logical fallacy. If you had bothered to read the fallacy he committed, you would not have wasted your time with this.

If you dont have a rationale supporting your argument I dont expect you to demand others are so logically pure. You're essentially holding outside ideas to higher standards than ones you hold already.

....which is not what happened; You might find it advantageous to actually read posts before attempting to respond. He made a logical fallacy and I called him on it.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I like culture
Culture is neat

[Prydania]

Homosexuality has no bearing on our ability to create art. Because all homosexual means is "attracted to the same sex." Someone's ability to create art isn't dependent on that. Same with heterosexuality, really.

That said? Someone's life as a homosexual in a heteronormative society will certainly inform their art. Their homosexuality won't inform their skills in creating it, but content certainly will be influenced by lived experiences.

But you don't know this as true, because it isn't.

Oh it is. You can't separate a person from lived experience.
You earlier mentioned that you can study up on African warfare and write a story about that, despite not being a solider or being from Africa. And that's true.
That being said, your story will likely be influenced by your own experiences. What you think of warfare, your impressions of Africa, etc..., all of which are informed from an outsider (ie non-African) perspective.

I've written short stories that have had nothing at all to do with homosexuality in a heteronormative environment. Does this mean I haven't made art, because my homosexuality hasn't influenced it?

You misunderstand.
Of course people can, and do, create art that isn't based on lived experiences on a surface level. That being said? I would wager that the issues that face a homosexual person that lives in a heteronormative (and sometimes homophobic) society would seep into your work, often in ways you don't intend. It's a process of discovery I myself have seen with my own work.

And it's really not that shocking. You're more than your sexual orientation, your race, your religion, your gender, your nationality. Yet all of these things about you inform your world view. And while you may not set out to write a story from the perspective of your sexual orientation, race, etc...? Those ideas will likely subconsciously seep into the art. Even if the art isn't about that on a surface level.
I don't say this as a criticism either. Everyone on the face of the earth is influenced by lived experiences. And everyone who makes art makes art that's influenced by them.

[Liriena]

A culture is not lesser or lacking just because it doesn't make pretty pictures.

Here's a neat thought experiment: try to form a purely visual mental picture that might serve as an approximation, for instance, of the essential spirit of Revolutionary or Napoleonic France, without resorting to any known piece of art (be it a painting, a drawing, a sculpture, a monument or any sort of professional photography). Or Renaissance Italy. Or the American struggle for independence. Or pre-Meiji Japan.

Art is one way in which we give meaning to our past and present (and sometimes speculate about our future). While not quite as intellectually rigorous at times as outright philosophy, it does give shape to our understanding of reality, of history, of how things are and what it signifies. Historically speaking, art hasn't only been something pretty to look at. It's also been a major educator, a way to put history and ideas in terms everyone could hopefully comprehend. One of the most well known novels of modern times, Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, exists because Hugo didn't want the people of modernity to forget how much architecture used to mean to us beyond just being nice to stare at for a bit, how much it used to teach.

If art was meaningless, we would not have had to put up with endless scaremongering through the centuries about how much harm some form of art or other was doing to us. If art was meaningless, people would not still be citing it in real life discussions about real life problems, and going to great lengths to protect or destroy it.

The fact that people still quote Orwell, the fact that It's a wonderful life was once cause for concern to the FBI, the fact that plays like Hamilton can resonate beyond Broadway's extremely exclusive stages, and the fact that the world was outraged by the destruction of works of art by ISIS, should tell the lot of us much about how alone and ultimately stupid your opinion is. Your arrogant cynicism is just a pathetic emptiness.

[Petrasylvania]

You can't really use logic to defend homophobia.

By that logic you can't use logic to defend anything.

Implying homophobia is a logical thing. Truth isn't the truth indeed.

[Albrenia]

I continue to grow increasingly bored of people who are -this- concerned with what other consenting adults choose to do in their private time which is not hurting anyone. If a culture is harmed by the people within it being free and equal, than that culture deserves to be harmed.

[Senator Huey Long]

I continue to grow increasingly bored of people who are -this- concerned with what other consenting adults choose to do in their private time which is not hurting anyone. If a culture is harmed by the people within it being free and equal, than that culture deserves to be harmed.

Hear, hear. Fact is, allowing gays to do their thing won't turn a culture into some crazy parody of a gay pride where drag queens rule and dildos reign.