[ad_1]
Jimmy Ackerson (SD) Clearly has no idea what good satire is. In my opinion it lies in his political stance, which reflects Oxon’s fatal view of human nature.
A politician who completely unconsciously chooses the term “people’s communication” as a relevant modifier for a disadvantaged group of people has tied rice to his back. It indicates a contempt for weakness, which is one of the most deadly mentalities of our time.
Brain research on the political brain in general, and also on the political brain, shows that the ability to recognize key existential dimensions and life conditions is very limited.
A politician who completely unconsciously chose the term “people’s communication” as a relevant modifier for a disadvantaged ethnic group has tied rice to his own back
Defining what satire is can be difficult. It’s about what kind of reception you want. A satirical angle on a current phenomenon may work one way in one audience context but not another. I’ve had that experience, having also been a “satire salesman” in multiple countries since the early 1970s.
What is good satire? As I said, it can be difficult to decide. Still, it may be important to contribute some perspective.
In general, it can be said that the greater the focus of conflict in a society, the more fanatical the ironic aesthetics of resistance.
In Sweden there has long been a great deal of slapstick humor. A comedian who makes people laugh, in some cases, almost makes the whole country laugh at himself. It may be as valuable as morphine when the pain is too severe, but as a medicine it is clearly offensive.
Too much It is naive to think that it forms public opinion in any general way, that it will manage to touch the existential nerve points of the citizens. It is noteworthy that many professional judges of fairground performances rate success based on spontaneous, audible laughter in the auditorium. As if laughter is the only valid expression of the heart.
I think the main task of satire is to take the side of the oppressed. For example, the people who play the main roles in the New Testament
Another aspect. I am often asked the question: Can you be as mean as you want? No, you can’t be unreservedly mean. It can be weak and featureless. The responsible satirist must start from a moral point of view. I think the main task of satire is to take the side of the oppressed. For example, the people who play the main role in our most comprehensive religious record, the New Testament.
Based on this sacrosanct code of conduct, it can be said that satire can go as far and as relentlessly as the dominant camp of our society seems to have no limit to the open or hidden contempt for weakness.
A few years ago, during a satire festival in Salzburg, I asked some German colleagues what they thought was good satire and what its purpose was. The short answer was: “Bosheit aus Liebe zum Leben.” Be cruel for the love of life.
Lenny Bruce, the American comedian and satirist, made himself inevitable but never really popular. He realized that if a play was played with equal intensity throughout the entire catch range from right to left, it would be easy to prepare big holes for lies. It was a joke that would never become a disaster. It was a humor that would fade.
If in my material I go out with conflict, I poke at the deeper, more sensitive layers of the soul, but everyone in the heterogeneous audience feels good and applauds what I offer, then I may have failed as a satirist.
In my professional practice I must be ready to sacrifice some of that love of the people which is cherished by many artist idiots, namely, broad anchoring.
Worked in Vienna During World War I, throughout the 20s and 30s or so, there was a man named Karl Kraus. Elias Canetti, the 1981 Nobel Prize winner for literature, had a profound experience with Kraus and described him as the greatest and most demanding cultural personality that Vienna could offer at the time.
Karl Kraus cannot really be defined by genre. In this sense, he is a Kierkegaardian impossible man. Philosopher? Yes and no. Essayist? Yes and no. Poet? Yes and no.
Karl Kraus was first and foremost a satirist. His biographer Edward Timms describes him as an apocalyptic satirist. After all, the Book of Revelation is about revealing hidden things through inexplicable, supposed inspiration from God.
Kraus’s religious views were obvious, although he ridiculed the church more fiercely and mockingly than anyone else of his time. In general, his fierce attacks on social phenomena and public figures were extremely accurate. There was no popular atmosphere there. It is considered incomprehensible that he did not end up in prison.
“Satire never changes the claims it satirizes, but rather presents them in a way that illuminates their inherent hypocrisy”
With the help of a unique combination of the most different stylistic devices and linguistic expressions, Kraus can handle most subject areas charmingly. Sometimes high, sometimes low. And always in a well-known and classic way. He knows how to extract poetic tension from the vulgar.
Klaus is It was like the entire theater was like that. It was not uncommon for audience members to leave the hall in silence and hold each other’s hands, a sign of a truly powerful experience.
Canetti wrote: “This miracle, this monster, this genius, had the most ordinary name – Karl Kraus.”
I first mention Kraus because of his concept of neighborhood satire. Particularly worth considering are:
“Satire never changes the propositions it satirizes, but rather presents them in a way that illuminates their inherent hypocrisy.”
Read more:
Messiah Hallberg: I don’t know much about Åkesson, but he doesn’t know what good satire is
[ad_2]
Source link
