Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)
Adam Curtis’s 2017 critique of “self-expression” prompts a wider look at how individualism, art, and politics have evolved from the 19th century to the postmodern, social‑media era. Commenters both praise and distrust Curtis: they see his documentaries as powerful, emotionally compelling narratives about power, propaganda, and technology, but fault them for selective evidence and lack of rigor. The conversation branches into the commercialization of contemporary art, the tension between individual freedom and collective action, and whether today’s culture of hyper‑individualism undermines social cohesion or is essential for resisting authoritarianism.
Documentaries and recommended viewing
- Many commenters strongly recommend the filmmaker’s documentaries; suggested entry points include “The Century of the Self,” “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace,” “Pandora’s Box,” “The Mayfair Set,” and “Can’t Get You Out of My Head.”
- Some series are seen as less successful (“HyperNormalisation” called a “miss” by multiple people).
- Several argue his work is especially relevant for technologists, given its focus on computing, control, and large-scale social systems.
Style, rigor, and “propaganda”
- Multiple comments emphasize that his work is highly engaging but “thought‑provoking and utterly lacking in rigor.”
- Critics say he selectively assembles facts to fit pre‑chosen narratives, sometimes reaching conclusions not well supported by data.
- Others defend him as an artist/storyteller rather than a journalist; his value is seen as perspective-shifting rather than fact-establishing.
- There is debate over whether this kind of narrative, impressionistic work is acceptable in a “post‑LLM” world where meandering, non‑rigorous text is easy to generate.
Self-expression, individualism, and politics
- Some agree that hyper‑individualism fragments society and weakens collective power, leaving space for autocrats and demagogues.
- Others argue self‑expression and contrarianism are essential safeguards against totalitarianism; group power struggles are seen as zero‑sum, while individual rights are not.
- Several note that computers and social media are already heavily used to create identity-based movements (ISIL, QAnon, MAGA, LGBTQ+, etc.), contradicting the article’s claim that nobody uses data to build common identity.
- There is tension between calls for group-based political action and desires for more inward, non‑power‑seeking quests for personal virtue.
Art, self-expression, and historical comparison
- Long subthreads compare pre‑modern, more constrained art (Renaissance religious painting, Ottoman miniatures) with contemporary art driven by self‑expression and market positioning.
- Some admire past eras’ shared subjects and technical standards; others note that past work was also shaped by patronage and status competition.
- Modern “self-expression” is criticized as paradoxically uniform, market-shaped, and often depoliticized.
- Several connect shifts in art to photography, mass reproduction, postmodernism, and the decline of realism/technical skill as primary metrics.
Art market, power, and finance
- Multiple commenters claim the high-end art world is deeply intertwined with money laundering, tax avoidance, and asset storage (e.g., freeports), though others push back that this does not describe “most” art.
- Links and examples are shared about freeports and wealth‑tax arbitrage; there is debate over whether this is truly “tax evasion” versus legal tax avoidance.