i sometimes look at words for too long and they just seem odd, almost like i'm looking at a foreign language. and apparently it's called orthographic satiation.

- note to self

at this point this is surely a rehashing of debates about tokenism, but i think we're reaching a point where inclusion alone ought not to be the primary criteria for judging whether something is good or not.

being gay is surely both an important thing to some people and peripheral to others, making room for both of those things and yet simultaneously not having to rely on their conclusion to bolster a bad piece of culture is surely the direction that ought to be taken.

that's an obvious point and one that i feel is unavoidable. it's like the whole conversation about whether gayness ought to define a character or whether the gayness ought to be cursory to them. both and, necessarily is the answer, because both things matter so much.

i think this is a mistake. progressive values in art is neither a good thing or a bad thing. art without them certainly isn't hampered, what matters is whether the art is good in spite of and because of the inclusion of progressive values. what does the inclusion of progressivism do and or mean.

her concern feels historically valid, but i think the larger preoccupation that's buried in her work is what makes art valuable. if art and politics could exist as separate spheres once more, art purely for aesthetic pleasure and politics for revolutionary change, then we might be alright.

At least if you’re aware it’s kind of like a fuck you to the man or some poor soul that happened to be looking at the wrong time