|
|
От
|
Пуденко Сергей
|
|
|
К
|
Кудинoв Игорь
|
|
|
Дата
|
21.05.2012 14:25:01
|
|
|
Рубрики
|
В стране и мире;
|
|
Re: "Уже начали делать игрушечные автозаки!"...
> Потусоваться, да, можно, но завтра дожди и грозы.
http://echo.msk.ru/blog/varlamov_i/890441-echo/
04. Непонятно зачем пришли "православные" активисты. Молодые люди начали нести какую-то ересь, про оскорбления их религиозных чувств, махать библией и требовать всех срочно уверовать и прекратить безобразие. Народ не понимал, что от него хотят, ведь шествие к религии вообще не имело отношение, да и работ на тему религии не было. Активисты через усилитель включили какую-то странную музыку и начали проповедь, художники решили их побить ;). В общем, пара небольших стычек не испортила праздник, и вскоре православные ушли.
06
Один мужчина на веревочке катил милицейский грузовик.
- А как вы его сделали? - спросил его художник
- Я его купил! - ответил владелец грузовика
- ТАК ВЫ ЕГО НЕ САМИ СДЕЛАЛИ?!
- Нет, а какая разница?
- Большая, это же не искусство!
- Как не искусство? Это перфоманс, вы что, не понимаете? Уже начали делать игрушечные автозаки!
- Если вы его не сами сделали, это не перфоманс и не искусство!
- Да что вы вообще в искусстве понимаете?
В итоге два художника чуть не подрались из-за игрушечного грузовичка
http://echo.msk.ru/files/779097.jpg?1337487574
вчера бегло слушал НТВшников, там отвечая лающему едросу злобная американка сравнила наше воблоглазое всё с Сарой Пейлин, ПМСМ что-то есть.
Сара вроде уже сдулась,но дело ее живет
"Это гадят Америке не те ньюйоркцы, которые настоящие американцы", как-то так
приложэниэ
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5387
1 июня 2010
обзор политики
Tea Party против интеллектуалов
...
In his most famous novel, 1984 , George Orwell envisioned a society in which the ruling elite has successfully mastered the politics of mind control by altering what was formerly known as the English language into a vehicle of subtle propaganda known as Newspeak. For Orwell, the first and most important step to political totalitarianism was the consolidation of elite control over mass culture. The more thorough and pervasive this control, the harder it would become for anyone to think outside the box of approved ideas. Imperceptibly and over time, the elite would shrink the dimensions of this box until people had very little choice but to toe the party line — not because they thought it to be correct, but because they could no longer imagine an alternative to it. The party line becomes their common sense.
Cultural hegemony, according to Gramsci, did not have to be imposed on the people through threats and intimidation.
A generation before Orwell devised the idea of Newspeak, the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci had developed a concept that in many ways foreshadowed it, but with one major and considerable difference. Before Gramsci discovered Marx, he had been a student of languages. Gramsci was especially fascinated by what happened when two languages collided. Throughout European history, conquerors had routinely moved into new territories where the inhabitants spoke a different language. In some cases, such as the Normans in France, it was the conquerors who picked up the language of the conquered, but more frequently, it was the other way around. What explained this fact? Why did a conquered people so often abandon their own language in order to learn the language of their conquerors?
Gramsci argued that what led people to discard their native language was the greater prestige of the conqueror's language. The idea of prestige, which had never played a role in classical Marxism, became the key to Gramsci's most famous concept, cultural hegemony. For Orwell, the cultural hegemony sought by the totalitarian state had to be imposed on the masses through diabolically cunning devices such as the telescreen, a reverse television system that permitted the Thought Police to watch and monitor the activities of citizens in the privacy of their own homes. People did not watch the telescreen. Instead they were watched by it, fully cognizant that if they did anything to displease Big Brother they could face the most ghastly consequences imaginable.
For Orwell the basis of cultural hegemony was terror. For Gramsci, on the other hand, it was prestige. Cultural hegemony, according to Gramsci, did not have to be imposed on the people through threats and intimidation. It didn't need to be imposed at all. Conquered subjects sought to emulate the prestigious language of their conquerors, while they simultaneously came to look down on their own native tongue as gross, defective, and inferior. In modern liberal societies the same principle has been at work, but with different players. As education became the ticket to worldly success, it naturally became a source of prestige. Prestige no longer came from conquest by arms, but from earning a Ph.D. In modern secular societies, the eminence of the intellectual elite allowed it to unilaterally allocate prestige to select ideas, thinkers, and institutions.