/lit/ - Literature

I'll try to copy some of the context

>>neoclassicism
>>direct opposite of romanticism
>Retard

That pic is neoclassicism, pretty much the direct opposite of romanticism, easily showing that nobody ITT has the slightest idea about the topic.

>postulates a faux return to the ideals of the ancient past
Not really. Pretty much all of post-humanism art had that ideal, but their veneration of the antiquity was frequently accompanied by deformation and borderline fabrication (see the classicist doctrines, artificially imposed and even made-up, while claiming to follow the ancient authorities). Romanticism was precisely the moment when the ideal underwent a drastic rethinking and refocusing, seeking the natural expression of genius, replacing Horace and Vergil with Homer and Ossian.
>all the pre-christian cultures in romanticism are seen through a judeo-christian perspective
Well, yeah, since pretty much nobody sought to understand the prechristian cultures very deeply before the romanticist era, obviously they were initially led astray by their own contemporary culture and values. But it was precisely that interest that gave rise to philology and increasingly precise historiography, and thanks to that we finally did get the tools to understand other and old cultures better.

Romanticism sucks, it's a soulless philosophical and literary movement that postulates a faux return to the ideals of the ancient past while also ignoring everything that made the past worthy of being remembered, all the pre-christian cultures in romanticism are seen through a judeo-christian perspective that automatically makes them antithetical to the social and cultural context of the epochs it tries to bring back from the grave. Romanticism is what Wicca and other pseudo-religious new age cults are to the ancient pre-christian traditions, romanticism has nothing in common with what its authors attempted to revive.