New Cave Matsuri

[cul]

So you're quoting a part I didn't read, that proves even further my argument? And you sincerely believes it counters my argument? The guy says in the same sentence that there is no link between idols and sexuality but he's "Totally creeped out" when he sees one of his idols having sex. So there's a link, the link is sexual repression and shame, a link everyone but you can see.

Wow. I thought Skykid was a bit over the top saying you have serious reading difficulty and an inability to digest basic logic but..... Wow....

[Cagar]

-

[NTSC-J]

The interview truly is your average idol-otaku, I can see that.

Something completely alien to Skykid, NTSC-J and some others in this thread who have utterly distorted view of j-idols and their fans.

Honestly, I was thinking that guy was an extreme example, but if you're willing to admit that I'll go along with you.

I wouldn't mind talking about this topic more, but that last exchange between Cagar and cul is kind of shocking to me and I wonder if it's worth the effort. That guy in the interview clearly has major issues with women and female sexuality, but if that isn't obvious to Cagar or others, what else can be said to convince you?

For the record, I don't care if fans know that it's all a fantasy or if the idols are willing participants. My issue is with idolizing shallow representations of women instead of having real relationships and accepting women as they are. I hate that I have to say that I don't think every single idol fan is a creepy loner like that guy, but if he is an average fan, there is something wrong.

If anyone has the numbers, I would be interested in seeing how the fanbase demographics break down. Is it really mostly single adult men? How many diehard fans are adult women or married men with children? I get the impression that women (including teenage girls) gravitate towards k-pop male idols.

[cul]

This will be my last post on this topic:

A) You argue that because the guy says "I don't see idols sexually", there is "No link between idols and sexuality". If you fail to see how it's a logical fallacy I'm not sure I can do much. But hey...

Let's see again what he says on the topic:

..do you see idols as being sexual?"

In a manner leagues more relaxed than I was, he calmly shrugged and said, "Well, I never thought of them in that way.

He says so, that must be true!
But, funnily enough, I believe him. I believe he finally believes it, after years of suppressing his urges he has internalized is self rationalizing bullshit. Like after years of opiates abuse I have internalized I don't have a drug problem.

And don't even get me started on how he doesn't actually answer, how it's typical avoiding behavior. How the saying "I don't think of them that way", is not something random and anecdotal, this guy can't say "I don't think of them SEXUALLY" because he's afraid of saying the word itself. I'm sure when he said "that way" he rolled his eyes and avoided eye contact with the interviewer it typical avoidant behavior.

B) "But man, there is really NO link with sexuality, they just follow idols for the entertainment man!"

[...]
Anyways, Kaori Matsumura, whom I cheer for, recommended fans to buy the video on a radio program, so I bought it. However, she looked exactly like she did in the idol group and I could only see her as an idol, so I didn't even watch it. It was really disturbing and I felt weird about it all. I would have never thought that such a pure idol would have become so dirty. It was too uncomfortable for me. What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that idols don't create that link to such things in my mind."

So, let's analyze this:

1) He says he bought the AV.
2) He says "However, she looked exactly like she did in the idol group and I could only see her as an idol"
3) Then: "so I didn't even watch it". So how could he know how she looked like? Or is he talking about the DVD jacket?
4) "It was really disturbing and I felt weird about it all." Yeah, he watched it. I hope he did. Because if he found that disturbing and made him feel weird without watching, that is EVEN MORE FUCKED UP.
5) "I would have never thought that such a pure idol would have become so dirty. It was too uncomfortable for me." Do i need to say more? Also, does that qualify to "ultimately close-minded attitude" by your book?
6) "I would have never thought that such a pure idol would have become so dirty." I'm not gonna go into the judgemental disgusting shit, but if for you, it's not a clear sign of how those idols are a sexual placebo/repressing product sold to guys like this to make them suppress their urges anymore, you're fucking retarded.


Those guy don't follow idol for the terrible music, not for the shitty dance, they follow the idols themselves. That's why most of them only focus to a couple of girls, regardless of what is their band. They follow girls because they find them "beautiful/cute", this is part of sexuality, it's normal. It is attraction to a member of the opposite sex you find attractive, and while guys confident in their sexuality would have no problem claiming it, they rationalize and repress it by saying "we don't see them that way" and other lies.

Except for the very small minority of truly asexual people, a lack of sexual life brings people to substitute behaviors, because sexuality is a urge and you can't do much about it. The substituting behavior will be different from people to people because of many reasons: culture, education, religion, experience, etc. Some people will use porn, for some it will be peep shows, for some it will be IDOLS.

The guys who goes for idols are almost always introvert virgins with a very idealized vision of sexuality, for them anything in the physical world gross them out. That's why they use words like "gross", "pure", "love" etc. This is a very problematic sexual issue that can ruin one's life if never addressed properly by therapy and confrontation to reality. That's why, among other reasons, the idol industry is unhealthy: its entire business model revolves around comforting and encouraging the sexual problems of insecure virgin men. This is both disgusting and unhealthy.


C) "But no no, this guy doesn't represent the majority of idols otakus, right?"

..do you see idols as being sexual?"

[...] I'm not sure about other people, though. It's too scary to ask them. This topic is a taboo in the idol otaku world.

Ho, it's a "taboo topic"? How surprising.
"In the otaku world"? So, that means it's the norm? Man, how unexpected.
So that means that your average idol otaku is insecure about sexuality? I don't believe it!

D) On the implication of being close-minded:

It's quiet fucked up that you believe I'm some version of Anita Sarkeesian. One of the main reason is that the video game industry is not an unhealthy industry by nature. While an industry that uses the sexual and psychological problems of insecure men as a market IS.

It's like with porn. Plenty of people defend porn blindly as part of "sexual progress", and refuse to see it for what it is: the marchandisation of it. They refuse to see it for what is and the bad aspects of it.
It's actually interesting (and not a coincidence) to see that the country that produces the most porn every year is also a country were prostitution is illegal. It's not being "close-minded" to criticiste porn and to show it for what it is, it's the same for idols.

In conclusion: here we go, it's not because otaku idols say they don't see idols sexually that there is NO LINK between idols and sexuality, there clearly is, like showed above.

[Cagar]

-

[BryanM]

I remember when Cave used to make shooters and Off Topic used to be nostalgia glurge over how metal the Sega Genesis was and is.

[trap15]

Better times...

[Skykid]

But IMO that's what happens when you make the person you're talking with a heated adversary from the start.

A moron and a gorilla was the opening gambit, whereas my post was directed at bettering oneself rather than at an individual.

Those guys who tried to formulate further reiterative arguments, nice try, but this is a case of futility until the opposition changes.

The worst part of any discussion is people not reading your comments and then proceeding to put words in your mouth to such a degree that your original point is lost entirely. So I feel your frustration.

That said it is possible to have intelligent debate depending who you're engaging with. I'd much rather speak to this guy:

Skykid's post might seem arrogant, but you have to understand his philosophy. Despite his liberal politics, his beliefs on art and life are a bit more "classical" IMO. Other people might read it as egoism or arrogance, but in fact he's just staying true to his beliefs and philosophy and making no pretenses to the contrary.

I respect that you read the posts enough to grasp this, and also respect that you disagree with some of my beliefs.

We've had discussions in the past and agreed to disagree on some points, but I'd much rather do that with someone capable of coherency than bang my head into a brick wall rephrasing unread sentences of text.

With that in mind, I'd like to take on a couple of your points:

I don't agree with many of his views on them myself (such as quality of art being "quantifiable"), but I understand where he's coming from, respect him, and I treat his views as something to consider objectively

Previously I don't know if we actually discussed 'art' as quantifiable - I seem to remember we were talking about whether there was such a thing as a 'bad' game objectively. You felt that there was no such thing as a bad game, it all depended on the approach from the player, whereas I consider all creative works to be quantifiable in quality based on other works within their field. Is that correct?

The reason I picked up on this is that I always try to avoid discussions about 'art' being quantifiable. You mentioned my views on art are more classical, and that's probably true: my parents were in the arts and I grew up exposed to (and occasionally on) the stage. I didn't give a crap about Stoppard, Wilde, Shakespeare or literary classics as much as my Super Famicom, but when I was older started looking at media differently I realised that I'd inherited an appreciation whether I liked it or not.

These days the simplest way I discern art is by knowing what doesn't qualify. So while I wouldn't say it's 'quantifiable' because of the broadness of the definition, I would say you can apply a process of elimination.

Eaglet's simple assessment requires some elaboration. There are plenty of creative, not for profit works that are still trash, and at a push you can say that there's good art and bad art. If an amateur painter creates an oil painting that's fit for hanging in McDonald's, you can still say it's a piece of art - it's just crap.

Cagar would argue that if you're entertained, then the product has value. But I consider that a failing of the individual. You can say J-idol set dressing, costumes, choreography etc are 'artistic', but the end product isn't art IMO. It's consumerist drivel of the lowest rung, no different from junk meat turned out of a battery farm. It might taste ok on the plate, but it's still shit.

There's no way corporate rubbish like Nikki Minaj's asscrack and anacondas, and a lot of what Japan produces to drive its consumer culture can ever be considered art to me. It's a thing of components; and contrary to Cagar's assessment, it's not the people desiring these things, its the capitalist machine that teaches them to desire them.

On the same note I readily enjoy things I consider to be wonderfully lowbrow. I find value in base media: anime, action movies, so bad they're good classics, 80s junk etc, I just acknowledge them for what they are rather than what they aren't. The only thing I look for is a certain flair in the production: something you can hold onto that's done well. Then you can quantify what's good trash and useless trash, if that makes sense. When there's nothing redeeming at all, it's a write off.

For example Geist made a nonsense comment on the last page that I don't like visual novels. That's not true at all, I love visual novels - I just don't care for 4chan's cripple VN because it's godawful through and through.

So I'll put a question to you: what do you personally think is a bad product? Something that's simply been badly done? Based on your opinion of art as unquantifiable, I'd be interested to know.

[iconoclast]

I don't see anything unusual about the guy's reaction to the idol porn video. I assume he spent some time following her and her idol group, where she always presented a pure, wholesome image (presumably). Then she goes and does porn. If somebody saw, let's say Winnie the Pooh getting gang banged, would it be strange if they found it disturbing?

Also, why automatically link "cute" to sexuality? It's pretty common to find people calling kittens or babies cute. Are they repressing their desire to fuck them?

[Squire Grooktook]

The reason I picked up on this is that I always try to avoid discussions about 'art' being quantifiable. You mentioned my views on art are more classical, and that's probably true: my parents were in the arts and I grew up exposed to (and occasionally on) the stage. I didn't give a crap about Stoppard, Wilde, Shakespeare or literary classics as much as my Super Famicom, but when I was older started looking at media differently I realised that I'd inherited an appreciation whether I liked it or not.

I just want to say, I think we're in the same boat in that regard. My mother (as part of her home schooling) had me reading one work of great literature at a time throughout my entire childhood (at least 2 chapters a day). I can't say for certain how much of a difference it has made, but I imagine it has been a vast influence on me. Probably my character, taste, intelligence (or what meager amount I have), everything.

So I'll put a question to you: what do you personally think is a bad product? Something that's simply been badly done? Based on your opinion of art as unquantifiable, I'd be interested to know.

Much like with my convo with Eaglet earlier, I originally had a longer (two extra paragraphs) post here, but trimmed it down since I felt it was getting into my own personal philosophy too much.

But to give an answer without delving too much into my own moral/spiritual/philosophical belief systems, I believe that only people can posses "value" and be "good". I don't believe that any art can ever truly be "good" or "bad" as I define those as purely moral concepts of value that can only really be attributed to sapient beings, and not inanimate collections of visuals or sound waves. I believe that nothing is truly good or bad in the realm of art, and any work can only be good or bad relative to the individuals with which it resonates. If your personality or brain is wired to find a particular melody pleasing, then that's just the way it is and I can't really judge or criticize that one way or the other.

But, ditching the semantics of good and bad for a moment, I do believe that some things should be inherently respected for the sheer amount of blood, sweat, and tears their creator or creators spilled in order to craft something that would endure and resonate (by design!) with countless people throughout the ages (even if nothing will ever be capable of touching everyone). For example, maybe someone personally can't enjoy Shakespeare, and that's fine (some great authors throughout history couldn't get into him), but if they call it "shit", I would call them an idiot. To you, this is probably close enough to calling a work "good", and close enough to calling works that utterly lack this time, thought, and effort, as "bad".

If I wanted to think of it in a more idealistic way, I guess you could say, a work is good if its creator put a little bit of their soul, an expression of their individuality, into it. And bad if they didn't bother and just made a product to be gulped down.

[Sakurei]

However, fujoshi are unrelated to anything idol related. There are just no males to pair up.

There are male idol groups though, like SMAP and V6.

You're right. I phrased it poorly because I wasn't giving male idols any thoughts. Naturally fujoshi can be involved with those.

Also, why automatically link "cute" to sexuality? It's pretty common to find people calling kittens or babies cute. Are they repressing their desire to fuck them?

Considering the flow of the discussion: Yes.

[NTSC-J]

Also, why automatically link "cute" to sexuality? It's pretty common to find people calling kittens or babies cute. Are they repressing their desire to fuck them?

So do you think chastity clauses are standard business practice around here? Maybe the middle-aged longshoreman down at the Tsukiji fish market has to shave his head and give a tearful apology to his customers when word gets out he got a handjob after work?

[Skykid]

Well, it mostly comes down to my view on "good" and bad. Without getting too much into my own belief systems and moral/spiritual philosophy, I believe that only living, sapient things (ie people) can be inherently valuable (and thus, "good"), whereas everything else inanimate (ie art) can only ever be "valuable" or "good" in relation to the people who use or experience it. As genius as, let's say Mozart, was, and as much as his work deserves respect and admiration, his works are ultimately just sound waves and can't truly be called good or bad sounding except by individuals according to how much those sounds resonate with them. There is no "magic" there, just something brilliantly designed to speak to large swathe's of people, but not everyone. To aliens evolved with different auditory tastes, all Earth music might be un-listenable crap.

From this perspective, I see nothing wrong in enjoying something or not enjoying something.This is probably purely semantically, but to me nothing in art can be inherently good or bad.

Right, well that explains a lot, and I never would have been able to guess you were making assessments on such a broad scale.

But don't you think that might be too broad? Human beings have created some pretty wonderful things. You can say that, in the grand scheme of the infinite universe, another species may not recognise our accomplishments as special or meaningful, but that shouldn't change the way we relate to each other through our work.

Personally I think there is a magic to creativity, imagination and application. We've come up with some pretty inspiring stuff.

If I asked you to accept our limitations and drop the existential view, surely you must be able to see creative work as quantifiable. I mean, you said this:

For example, maybe someone personally can't enjoy Shakespeare, and that's fine (some great authors throughout history couldn't get into him), but if they call it "shit", I would call them an idiot.

And so you should! But by that remit aren't you simply saying that in terms of poetry, Shakespeare's work is a cut above? That's quantifying isn't it?

What about if we put Shakespeare next to Kanye West, who considers himself a lyrical genius - would you quantify one as lesser and one as greater?

[Squire Grooktook]

Ha ha, I guess my ninja'ing wasn't fast enough.

Personally I think there is a magic to creativity, imagination and application. We've come up with some pretty inspiring stuff.

You may be right, honestly. As much as I do find the existential view of art appealing in an individualistic kind of way. There is a part of me that does want to believe that there is transcendental value in some of the things people have created. I would love to believe that when somebody creates something with all their heart, they put a bit of their own soul into it forever, and that this does give it a kind of magic and inherent value. Of course, this is my idealistic/romantic side talking, and this kind of magical/spiritual stuff is probably the most impossible to quantify of all, but it would give one reason to elevate certain works above others.

It's something to think about, I suppose

And so you should! But by that remit aren't you simply saying that in terms of poetry, Shakespeare's work is a cut above? That's quantifying isn't it?

What about if we put Shakespeare next to Kanye West, who considers himself a lyrical genius - would you quantify one as lesser and one as greater?

Well, that follows from what I was saying about blood, sweat, and tears. I think the sheer craft of Shakespeare's works mark them as the result of supreme, titanic effort, which affords them a dignity that some thrown together rap song could never lay claim to, even if one does find it appealing. That, and Shakespeare's work do contain a staggering amount of depth and texture that's hard to find elsewhere.

If I were to think about it from the "magical" view above, though, I suppose I could say that Shakespeare's work is more valuable because, in its unique depth and beauty, it stands as the self expression of a profound, one of a kind individual, who will never again grace the pages of human history. As I said, something to dwell on.

Ah, either way, I may end up conceding your point here, at least a bit.

[Cagar]

-

[Zen]

Squire bringing the parachute!
"T-The discussion was not getting anywhere anyways!"
I'll take that as a sign of admitting that you were just unable to continue; not because of time, but because your slowly rising amount of argumentation mistakes culminated in a 100% ad hominem post.

I hate it when people leave a discussion at "well I disagree, bye". It's usually the part where the discussion starts to even bloom with any fruit, but apparently the road to getting there is already too much for some. (And I thought that Skykid, as the old, world knowing guy he is would've known this but I was wrong).

The last thing that I will say, as Skykid with his drinking buddies will probably move on to nod and agree about things in some other thread, is this: You have an internet meme-tier stereotypic view of the idol hobby

This is genuinely fascinating. The lack of both self and situational awareness displayed here is remarkable.

[Cagar]

-

[Zen]

Ha ha, I guess my ninja'ing wasn't fast enough.

Personally I think there is a magic to creativity, imagination and application. We've come up with some pretty inspiring stuff.

You may be right, honestly. As much as I do find the existential view of art appealing in an individualistic kind of way. There is a part of me that does want to believe that there is transcendental value in some of the things people have created. I would love to believe that when somebody creates something with all their heart, they put a bit of their own soul into it forever, and that this does give it a kind of magic and inherent value. Of course, this is my idealistic/romantic side talking, and this kind of magical/spiritual stuff is probably the most impossible to quantify of all, but it would give one reason to elevate certain works above others.

It's something to think about, I suppose

And so you should! But by that remit aren't you simply saying that in terms of poetry, Shakespeare's work is a cut above? That's quantifying isn't it?

What about if we put Shakespeare next to Kanye West, who considers himself a lyrical genius - would you quantify one as lesser and one as greater?

Well, that follows from what I was saying about blood, sweat, and tears. I think the sheer craft of Shakespeare's works mark them as the result of supreme, titanic effort, which affords them a dignity that some thrown together rap song could never lay claim to, even if one does find it appealing. That, and Shakespeare's work do contain a staggering amount of depth and texture that's hard to find elsewhere.

If I were to think about it from the "magical" view above, though, I suppose I could say that Shakespeare's work is more valuable because, in its unique depth and beauty, it stands as the self expression of a profound, one of a kind individual, who will never again grace the pages of human history. As I said, something to dwell on.

Ah, either way, I may end up conceding your point here, at least a bit.

I have read a few of your posts in the past, Squire Grooktook and I can say, with respect, I disagree with you without fail but it is interesting to see your point of view nonetheless.

Re. the above post, are you not pushing the bounds of semantic fluidity dangerously close to meaninglessness?
Is it a case of not wanting to commit yourself for the sake of open-mindedness, or, are you just leaving yourself a "way out"?

[Squire Grooktook]

I uhhh, don't know. I'm thinking I need to sit down and think about it some more now, after this.

[Skykid]

This is genuinely fascinating. The lack of both self and situational awareness displayed here is remarkable.

Best we forget about Cagar. He doesn't have the mental faculties and subsequently talks a lot of shit. For the record this isn't anything new.

You may be right, honestly. As much as I do find the existential view of art appealing in an individualistic kind of way. There is a part of me that does want to believe that there is transcendental value in some of the things people have created. I would love to believe that when somebody creates something with all their heart, they put a bit of their own soul into it forever, and that this does give it a kind of magic and inherent value. Of course, this is my idealistic/romantic side talking, and this kind of magical/spiritual stuff is probably the most impossible to quantify of all, but it would give one reason to elevate certain works above others.

Oh absolutely. In fact I don't think that's an unusual assumption at all! Some of the greatest pieces of music, film, literature etc. are famously by individuals whose work was driven by a personal passion. The Sistine chapel came with a paycheck, but you can be damn sure there was a man in love with what he could do with a paintbrush behind it. Orson Welles was famously stubborn and volatile with the movie studios altering his work, which ultimately (sadly) spelled his downfall. Kubrick was a genius who had no time for celebrity tantrums - you did the take 500 times until it was what he had in his head. Work is work and everybody needs money, but Wilde died poor and lonely for standing up for his beliefs, Van Gogh equally penniless - and I'm sure there are a million others out there who managed to achieve something great on their own merit that they were never recognised for in the wider world.

So yes, I think the things that stand eternal were absolutely labours of love. I often think what Shelley or Stoker would think if they could see the present day: their creations being doled out time and time again (usually badly), continuing to delight people and turn a buck for fat cat producers.

Well, that follows from what I was saying about blood, sweat, and tears. I think the sheer craft of Shakespeare's works mark them as the result of supreme, titanic effort, which affords them a dignity that some thrown together rap song could never lay claim to, even if one does find it appealing. That, and Shakespeare's work do contain a staggering amount of depth and texture that's hard to find elsewhere.

If I were to think about it from the "magical" view above, though, I suppose I could say that Shakespeare's work is more valuable because, in its unique depth and beauty, it stands as the self expression of a profound, one of a kind individual, who will never again grace the pages of human history. As I said, something to dwell on.

Ah, either way, I may end up conceding your point here, at least a bit.

Let's keep in mind it's a discussion and the aim isn't to win a point but convince of an argument. From the above I'd say you have already quantified Shakespeare versus Kanye West. And I'm not ragging on West (although I'll never forget his live rendition of We Are The Champions - Mercury would have turned in his grave) I appreciate in the rap music spectrum he's done some good things that fans will appreciate. But is his art quantifiable? Absolutely. He may be able to spin a tune but he ain't Shakespeare.

So let's wrap this around to the original idol argument, because that would make sense. Here's an interesting quote from Sakurei:

Skykid at shown that he has perfectly no understanding on how Japan works.

Firstly, this demonstrates nobody reads or pays attention to anything being written. I never commented on Japan once, and I challenge anyone to go back four pages to prove otherwise. Other people were contributing comments regarding Japanese culture - and as NTSC-J is a long term resident I don't see why he shouldn't - but for me it was only ever about elevating interests from a pretty low rung. I never strayed from the point that idols and idolisers are being seduced and fleeced by incredibly smart capitalistic entities who are doing a wonderful job of wasting their lives. The morality of using women to make money is a point I didn't touch on - I only commented that the women were fictional and fixations on them will have a detrimental effect on the way you view normal relationships - which Iconoclast kindly backed up with his otaku interview.

Not to mention that there is no reason why music and dancing wouldn't be art just because an idol is performing. Dancing and music have been art for the longest time and just because the setting for them changed doesn't mean they're suddenly not anymore.

And finally this is the full circle. I don't want to discuss what defines art - that's impossible, and a lot of it comes with time and hindsight. I'm willing to say that costume design, set design, production, choreography (perhaps not the music) are all 'artistic' - there are elements of creativity in there. But is the entire art? No. And it's quantifiably not art. Because as with Shakespeare versus Kanye West, we have an abundance of historic and existing works with which to draw a contrast.

I've said this on this forum time and time again: if quality is in the eye of the beholder, then it's simply a matter of education and perception.

I uhhh, don't know. I'm thinking I need to sit down and think about it some more now, after this.

Please do. Let me know what you come up with.

[Zen]

I uhhh, don't know. I'm thinking I need to sit down and think about it some more now, after this.

An honest response. One of the very few in this thread. Thank you.

[iconoclast]

Also, why automatically link "cute" to sexuality? It's pretty common to find people calling kittens or babies cute. Are they repressing their desire to fuck them?

So do you think chastity clauses are standard business practice around here? Maybe the middle-aged longshoreman down at the Tsukiji fish market has to shave his head and give a tearful apology to his customers when word gets out he got a handjob after work?

Well, we've already established that idol otaku don't cheer for them as real people, but rather for the image that they project themselves as. They're not interested in their private lives. So when an idol's involved in a "scandal", it hurts the image they're presenting and reduces their marketability. If part of the fishmonger's job was to present a "perfect picture" of youth and innocence to his customers, he'd probably be reprimanded too.

Reading up on the AKB girl that shaved her head, it looks like a demotion was her only punishment from management (which seems standard, for both men & women). Her response to that was to shave her head and post a tearful apology. Make of that what you will.


I'd still like to hear about the female fans of the female groups. How exactly are the business masterminds tricking them into buying music, merch, concert tickets, etc? Have they all become lesbians because Japanese men are too focused on the cute idols?

[Cagar]

-

[Skykid]

An honest response. One of the very few in this thread. Thank you.

If Skykid responded the same way as Squire instead of this:

Seriously, I'm just reading Cagar's most recent post and I'm in fucking despair.
Jesus wept. It's like having a discussion with a crack-addict.
Someone else talk to him.

Would he have been "honest" too?

That was honest.

[Cagar]

-

[Skykid]

So is that excerpt the entire reason you started this debate? I have a feeling, based on its content, yes.

Examining some excerpts of your excerpt:

debate is the fact that people for some reason conflate "art" with "good art".

Yes, I'd agree with that.

Does the a shitty theme song to a kids show stop being music because it's shitty? No, it's just bad music.

Likewise, no argument with this.

Idols are a coming together of various aesthetic forms to create a cultural object, usually with no practical purpose. They could only ever reasonably considered artwork.

Nonsense. They're a coming together of aesthetic forms yes, aesthetic artforms, no. It's a production designed under commercial principles to create profit and only profit. It's a corporate engineering as passionless as pop music that similarly flaunts the female to empty the wallets of a select group of people.

More important question: Are idols GOOD art? Maybe that's worth debating, but seeing their popularity and impact in Japan, I'd say yes

They're popularity in Japan doesn't make them good. They're good if you like that sort of thing. To everyone else they're fucking shit, and rightfully so.

[trap15]

Genital mutilation is popular and impactful in Africa, but I don't think we would consider that good.

[CStarFlare]

Genital mutilation is popular and impactful in Africa, but I don't think we would consider that good.

also America

[Skykid]

Genital mutilation is popular and impactful in Africa, but I don't think we would consider that good.

That's a very good parallel.

[Cagar]

-