Talk:Mark Fisher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mark Fisher (theorist))

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Moss effect, Pj2.71828, Aamartin27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled][edit]

Hey everyone. i am part of the University of Arizona project listed above, and just wanted to let the talk page know that we have made some adjustments to the article. The capitalist realism section was quite lacking, so we added a few subsections using more of the literature on and by Fisher to expand the information. Moss effect (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moss effect! This sentence could perhaps be rephrased: 'According to Mark Fisher, the quote “it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism,” falsely attributed to both Fredrick Jameson and Slavoj Žižek, encompasses the essence of capitalist realism.' Falsely attributed by whom? It sounds like Fisher is at fault here, but is he? Jameson DID say ‘Someone once said that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism’ (Jameson, Fredric, 'Future City', New Left Review, 21 (2003), XXXXX (http://newleftreview.org/II/21/fredric-jameson-future-city)) -- but clearly isn't claiming the phrase as his own. I'm not so clued up about who said what that I'm keen to rephrase it myself, so I thought I'd post here first. The fullest handling of the origins of this phrase that I know of is Qlipoth, 'Easier to imagine the end of the world ... than the end of capitalism', Wednesday, November 11, 2009 http://qlipoth.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/easier-to-imagine-end-of-world.html. Alarichall (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Fisher (theorist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exiting the Vampire Castle[edit]

This should be mentioned:

http://www.thenorthstar.info/2013/11/22/exiting-the-vampire-castle

Fisher came under fire online for this essay which argues against the online left's call-out culture as obstructing change, and breeding a further sense of futility among the online left.--tickle me 13:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tickle me: Thanks for the link! I had to dig it out of archive.org, but I was able to find an older version. I added this to the article. It could use more information regarding some of the controversy that was generated by this essay. Please point out those links/references if you have them. I also added a reference to this essay in the call-out culture article. Thanks for the information. - PaulT+/C 07:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How best to represent Fisher's death[edit]

I see that, in the header, 'He died in January 2017' has been changed to 'He committed suicide in January 2017'. Broadly, this seems a useful change to me insofar as it's more specific. But I wonder if 'took his own life' might be more appropriate (in the header and in the 'Death' section)? Perhaps people who know more about Fisher's thought on this would have a sense of what description might best fit Fisher's own conceptualisation of his death? Alarichall (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He killed himself. Simple and effective. Zezen (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that 'hanged himself' has been changed to 'committed suicide' by User:Wetrorave, who has cited MOS:EUPHEMISM. But 'hanged himself' is not a euphemism: it is a straightforward factual statement. As I've said above, however 'committed suicide' frames Fisher's death as a crime, which implies a moral judgement about it. I suggest reverting to 'hanged himself'. Alarichall (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alarichall, I'm not very familiar with Fisher really, so it may be changed to hanged himself anyway. The only reason I'm here is because I'm creating various articles relating to this artist, and this album was made in tribute of Fisher. I'm only here because of the wikilink in the page's infobox, and upon seeing "hanged himself" I found it a little bit strange (though it may indeed not be euphemism). There's also this other album for which Fisher wrote the liner notes.
I see this discussion has been going on for a lot longer than I thought. While I still don't think "hanged himself" is the best choice, I don't have any better suggestions, so I'll leave it at that. Wetrorave (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Useful additional sources[edit]

Jlevi (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection "legacy"[edit]

I've added the subheading "legacy". In the years following Fisher's death the praise for his work just seems to get more effusive, and there's often a number of tributes to Fisher that get published from year to year on the anniversary of his death. The k-punk blog has been called "required reading for a generation",[1] Fisher has been described as the most interesting British writer of the 21st century[2] and so on, so I think this subheading was long overdue. This section is still pretty embryonic and obviously this section should be as collaborative as possible so feel free to make comments and suggestions! Noteduck (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Reynolds, Simon (19 January 2017). "Mark Fisher's K-punk blogs were required reading for a generation". The Guardian. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  2. ^ Doyle, Rob (30 March 2019). "Is Mark Fisher this century's most interesting British writer?". The Irish Times. Retrieved 22 January 2021.

On the topic of notability and reliability[edit]

This issue seems to be a perpetual problem for Wikipedia: this dude and his bro Simon Reynolds, both of whom are, in reality, mere bloggers, blogging about music, somehow got to be known as household names in music criticism. Reviewing the list of reliable source on the subject matter of this article, it becomes clear that the sources are either he himself or the tusovochka (read "circle jerk") of the like-minded "music bloggers" writing pamphlets and vigils about sir Fisher. Most of them are freelancers and many are going through their lives without formal higher education in journalism or English. Scratch their biographers and they come out as typical "counter-cultural" bohemians, never employed, never having productively worked in their entire lives. Yet somehow their opinions are reliable simply by the fact that the newspaper called "The Guardian" (for instance) allowed them to publish their opinion pieces.

My point:

1. Unless a source author has formal higher (college / University) diploma education on subject matter, their opinion should not be taken as a reliable source, whoever published it. MSM in the West love to play in "democracy" and "let diverse voices sound", but that doesn't make the diverse voices reliable. I doubt that either Fisher or Reynolds or many from their inner circle hold a decent grasp of music theory at all, because they are, simply put, punks. Actual punks coming from actual punk subculture. Punk music is simplistic borderline music which barely requires any skill to play at all ("art punk" included), and they, I suspect, don't have any more grasp of music theory beyond punk. If they had formal musical education, it would be a different thing. Even in reviews they clinge to "cultural criticism" because their limited musical vocabulary doesn't allow them to describe the subject matter of a review anymore else beyond the feelings the album under review evokes in them.

2. Their opinions should be reviewed by the academic board for notability, and only after the peer review accepts them, they should become valid as a source for Wikipedia. It would be ridiculous to cite Medium code bloggers as reliable sources in computer science, because most bloggers are actual BSc in Computer Science, and the humanities should not hold the low bar either. Why so? Even among the educated "criticists" there may be people who only obtained the education not to expand and develop the field, but to push their own agenda, based merely on their low-level personal tastes obtained throughout their "rebellous youth", like punk music. Not being in academia after the studies (if they ever had any) invalidates their "criticisms" further, because makes them talking heads for breeding "opinions" for paid agenda-pushing.

3. If their writings are reliable, then any music blogger's opinions should be reliable as well. There are hundreds or thousands of music bloggers. Their voices are not worse or better simply because they weren't frequenting Anglo Londonish music boheme lounges by the time the required handshakes within the media happened.

4. I have specifically attacked these two bloggers because they are Anglo Saxon. Why are they considered to be of supreme reliability simply because English newspapers published them and simply because they are Anglo Saxon? There are multiple musical criticist schools worldwide, why on Earth English wikipedia considers dudes like Christgau, Reynolds, Fisher and such, to be apostles of criticism. The primarity of English-language sources from native English countries is dangerously non-neutral. I am more than sure that many actual musicians with all credentials that are needed to criticise anything about music keep their mouths shut about rap being disgraceful music, because the narrative is driven by uneducated leftist pseudo-Marxist hacks like Reynolds, and therefore the silenced educated musicians are afraid to be ostracized by the narrative woke mob.

5. While this may anger the wikipedians, what is being described here was a standard approach for any topic in any half-decent encyclopedia before the advent of "free crowd-sourced encyclopedia" that is Wikipedia.

6. That is peculiar to know, but following steps 1-4 would effectively clear Wikipedia of any "cultural Marxists", "cultural criticists", and "Anglo propaganda". Which makes one wonder why Wikipedia made the rules accepting them in the first place. Claude678 (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this perhaps the most elitist thing I have read on a Wikipedia talk page. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:B970:F5CE:AB8D:36F6 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about?

Suicide Method[edit]

Is there a justification for the inclusion of Fisher's method of suicide? The Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide linked on the Wikipedia suicide taskforce page very specifically recommend against including specific details. Likewise MOS:suicide says to err on the side of omissions when it comes to detail. Its inclusion (in the info box as has been previously discussed, but also in the death section) seems irresponsible and irrelevant to the general section. AtticEdit (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT's summary of criticism of Fisher[edit]

This might be helpful.

Mark Fisher, a British cultural critic and theorist, is known for his work in cultural studies, particularly his exploration of contemporary capitalist culture and its impact on mental health. While Fisher's ideas have been influential, there are some criticisms of his philosophy. It's important to note that criticisms are subjective and diverse, and different scholars and thinkers may have varying perspectives. Here are a few common criticisms:

Overemphasis on Capitalist Realism[edit]

Some critics argue that Fisher's concept of "capitalist realism" might be too deterministic, presenting a somewhat pessimistic view that restricts possibilities for social change. Critics suggest that it might oversimplify the complexities of cultural, economic, and political systems.

Lack of Concrete Solutions[edit]

Fisher has been criticized for highlighting problems associated with contemporary capitalism and culture without providing concrete solutions. Some argue that his work leans more toward critique than offering actionable strategies for change.

Neglect of Cultural Diversity[edit]

Fisher's focus on Western popular culture, particularly British and American contexts, has been criticized for neglecting cultural diversity. Critics argue that his analyses might not fully account for the experiences and nuances of individuals in different cultural and socioeconomic contexts.

Engagement with Mainstream Culture[edit]

Some critics argue that Fisher's work engages predominantly with mainstream popular culture, and his critiques might not fully address the experiences of subcultures or those outside mainstream narratives.

Marxist Determinism[edit]

Fisher's Marxist influences and his use of certain Marxist concepts have been criticized for leaning toward economic determinism. Critics argue that this perspective might not adequately address the complexities of contemporary culture and society.

Psychologization of Political Issues[edit]

Fisher's exploration of mental health issues in the context of capitalist culture has faced criticism for potentially oversimplifying or psychologizing political and social problems. Some argue that this approach might overlook broader structural issues.

It's essential to recognize that while Fisher's work has generated meaningful discussions and insights, criticisms highlight the ongoing debates within cultural theory and philosophy. Different scholars and readers bring diverse perspectives to these discussions, contributing to the ongoing development of critical thought. 118.100.83.151 (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find article about midlife crisis and Fisher's writings[edit]

I read an article a while back that I have failed to find but I thought might be interesting as a source of comment on Mark Fisher's writing.

Very roughly, it argued that Fisher's claims about the future being cancelled by, for example, a dearth of creativity in modern popular music, were not dissimilar to how a lot of middle-aged pepole feel about modern music not being as good as music was when the were young.

Further, plenty of middle aged people feel disappointed about their future being not as exciting as they thought it would be when they were young. So Mark Fisher was basically over-intellectualising his midlife crisis to blame it on capitalism. 2001:D08:1202:F803:302F:387A:4C10:A548 (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Fisher&oldid=1197462718"