What in God's name is AWCY? trying to prove with this?
SCP-2351 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-2351
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-2351.
That they can totally make merely amusing things what don't kill you?
That this is a piece of anart that may be intended to be nonsensical?
Hint: The choice of diseases and the choice of bird were both deliberate.
I don't understand this.
That they can totally make merely amusing things what don't kill you?
That this is a piece of anart that may be intended to be nonsensical?
I get both. Hell, AWCY? is my favorite GoI. But my question still stands.
I fear it would be bad form to give any kind of detailed explanation given that this is a contest entry, especially one whose defining feature is limited word count. Besides, either an SCP can stand on its own or it can't. If it can't, so it goes.
I'll say this: those diseases have something in common with each other. They weren't randomly picked.
They all have vaccines.
So, I'm guessing that what AWCY? is trying to say is that
the Foundation should try to disprove things that don't exist that are actually harming people, rather than hide harmless (edit: or well, comparatively less harmful) things that do exist?
I'd say more like "here's how many people die each year from each cause. You're containing 682, which last year caused 129 deaths; 173, that killed 14; and these geese, that never hurt anyone. Meanwhile, you're not containing these disease. What the hell, heroes?"
Given the comment about all of them having vaccines, I thought it was also, or mainly, a comment about the anti-vaccination movement. Given that the Foundation goes to such lengths to hide/discredit the anomalous, why not discrediting that movement also?
Pros:
- An out-of-nowhere effect that is quirky.
- I believe I have seen an SCP-682 and SCP-173 reference in that note, which I find to be lovely.
Cons:
- The note does feel tacked on just to enhance the article, rather than seamlessly flowing into the rest of the piece.
Verdict: Upvote
Interesting that it would be geese, considering there are so many ducks in the Foundation.
HF1
Yes, you are cool. Finally.
I applaud. THIS is what more anartists need to model themselves around. It doesn't kill. It doesn't maim. It doesn't traumatize. It makes you want to act like an idiot for a short time, and it carries a valid message.
As far as I know, there are no immunizations for 682 and 173. Thanks for the clarification on the diseases, it really did cinch this up.
This is one of my faves from this contest. That's a short list. +1.
Novote for now while I chew on this a bit more. I personally can't stand AWCY? as a GoI and the connection to this scip doesn't help it, imo. Also, I would debate that 0 figure in the note, given the number of fatalities caused by Canada (Canadian?) geese interacting with airplanes/vehicles. Yukla 27 was one of the more notable ones. So…yeah.
The note says "Three Canada Geese."
More specifically, the Canada geese now in containment. They likely won't ever kill anyone. The referenced skips can be contained slightly better so as not to kill anyone either, and don't kill many now.
Preventable diseases kill millions every year. The Foundation has a bottomless budget, but doesn't spend a cent on that sort of shit (unless the disease is really weird).
The object itself is fairly trifling and uninteresting, but that's constructed that way in service of the narrative, so let's leave that aside. The main thrust of this article is yet another exercise in "AWCY? fucks with the Foundation, because the Foundation is bad enough at its job that anomalous hipsters know of its existence".
First, making this a product of AWCY? brings all of the pitfalls of that site trope with it. I see a lot of commenters saying "finally, an AWCY? item that doesn't kill people," but that was never the main problem with how that GoI was typically portrayed. The main issue to me has always been that AWCY? are artists in the absolute crudest sense of the word. Can you imagine having access to media that bend or break the rules of reality as we understand it? The kinds of artistic visions that were previously impossible, but can now be realized? What would someone with any sort of talent and drive do with that? In most of the literature on the wiki, the answer to that is "lol I troll u". It seems like every AWCY? object is some sort of ham-handed attempt to teach lessons. Art reduced in essence to "you're not the boss of me, maaaan". It's obnoxious, and I think it leads to an extremely myopic view of what art is and who an artist is. Whether or not the piece in question kills eighty people or not.
This article is a continuation of that problem. This is barely art. This is hypocritical moralizing more suited for a political party than what's supposed to be an art collective pushing the boundaries of reality itself in the service of their craft. The inevitable response to this "well they're supposed to be that way," which I've always suspected is more post facto rationalization of an article's weaknesses rather than intent, but then why would I read about that? The story becomes "goofy hipsters do a thing for goofy reasons." No larger implications, no ring of truth about anything, no engaging experience for the reader, no insight into anything. Just some stuff that happens.
I agree with all of this.
And if the whole world is crashing down… fall through space out of mind with me.
I personally rather like that view of AWCY. I like that they're hamfisted hipster moralists, I like that they're talentless hacks, I like that they are violent and pointless and hypocritical and all of that.
This doesn't mean that I want to see more of their articles, though. I do want to see more actual art scips, taking different views, doing different things. I wrote an in-universe essay on the subject of anomalous art, trying to expand that particular horizon.
There's a dichotomy in my head: If it's good art, it's not AWCY - if it's AWCY, it will never be good art. And yeah, it gets very tiring seeing more and more AWCY articles that rate as "just passable" - they aren't good enough as art to not be AWCY, but they are not bad enough to be AWCY and meaningful, and the writing is competent enough that it won't get deleted. That's an unfortunate side effect, and if there is anything this community has taught me it is that unfortunate side effects are omnipresent. Fix one and others spring up.
But I just love AWCY as obnoxious little shits.
I wouldn't view it as a problem if your interpretation was the sitewide view of AWCY?. Like, I would still downvote pieces that rely on them because I don't find that concept very engaging, but I wouldn't consider it to be deficient writing, per se.
What I find to be a problem is that a lot of writers intend for AWCY? to be competent individuals with artistic merit, but end up in the place you're describing anyway. This piece, to me, is an exercise in that. I suspect we're of a similar mind on that point, though.
“It seems like every AWCY? object is some sort of ham-handed attempt to teach lessons.”
‘The story becomes "goofy hipsters do a thing for goofy reasons." No larger implications, no ring of truth about anything, no engaging experience for the reader, no insight into anything. Just some stuff that happens.’
I’m confused. Is your objection that you found article ham-handed about delivering a point, or is it that you found there was no point?
Djoric, I would love to read your essay.
I’m confused. Is your objection that you found article ham-handed about delivering a point, or is it that you found there was no point?
My objection is that it's a ham-handed attempt to teach someone a lesson. My further commentary was more about whether that intent is shared by the author or not. That's a distinction that doesn't really change my reaction.
Whether the "point" is valid from your point of view or not, the larger issues stand.
I want to clarify I was not trying to be confrontational when I asked. I appreciate any comments I get, including the criticism.
If I may ask, what did you find "hypocritical" about the article?
The essay is A Study of Anomalous Art.
I believe he says it's hypocritical just based off of the fact that AWCY? has regularly created anomalous objects, items, and exhibitions with primary intent to kill for art's sake, or that they, given their skills in creating anomalous art could probably vaccinate the world themselves, assuming they put some work into it.
I usually find discussions of what is and isn't "in-character" for any GoI, including the Foundation itself somewhat exasperating. Not only does every writer have their own personal canon(s) and headcanon(s), but there will always be an outlier. In the Foundation there will always be a sadistic douche, and in AWCY? there will always be one hint of an actual artist, or a poignant piece. That said, I understand the reasoning behind grouping together a group (obvs). With this piece, I think it could stand as an okay, if simple skip that's been so far dragged down by its relation to AWCY?. As just an anomalous piece of performance art, it probably would fare better.
Personally, right now, I think okay and simple are fine enough, especially for a first-time skip and short-works entry.
Thank you very much for the link.
If people are going to downvote this based on the fact that it's an AWCY? SCP, then they're welcome to do so. Personally, they're my favorite GOI, and I made this in part because I wanted to see more from them. But to each his own.
I won't speak for others, but the AWCY? association was just one part of my downvote. I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one, either.
No, you brought up very valid points. To be honest, I do actually like AWCY? for the reasons you cited. I see AWCY? as embodying of a lot of the traits about most post-modern art that I hate: they're self-congratulatory, pretentious, hipster trolls who are deliberately as obnoxious as possible. However, when they're good, they bring a perspective to the discussion that has merit, and cannot be dismissed no matter how much you hate the messenger.
Yes, much of it is trolling against the status quo, but I find that useful as the AWCY? articles I find to be the best (the Idea of a Shark, the emaciated statues that summon children dying of thirst, the "miror") point out how the status quo is fundamentally terrifying. The Foundation seeks to protect normalcy. AWCY? exists to demonstrate how normalcy might actually be scarier than the very SCPs the Foundation seeks to protect us from.
But you're right to say that there's more to anart than this, and you are right to say that there are higher targets than the one I chose to aim at. I was toying around with some other SCP ideas for my next project, but I think I'll put them on hold, because you and Djoric have piqued my interest as to where this all can be taken.
Reading this thread, it confirms one of the reasons I love AWCY?: the discussion thread their articles always have. In every AWCY? scp there are people saying how brilliant it is, people saying how stupid it is, and people saying how that's exactly the point; and that's the kind of discussion that I imagine would also occur in-universe, and the kind of reaction AWCY? wants.
So yeah, it's all pretty funny.
/forum/t-1297045/scp-2351#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
