/lit/ - Literature

>>20776956
>>20776963
>The Birth of Venus
>Often said to epitomize for modern viewers the spirit of the Renaissance
>Totally not pagan bro

>>19561890
>Now, in respect of plastic art it is palpable that its ideally creative force diminished in exact proportion as it withdrew from contact with religion. Betwixt those sublimest revelations of religious art, in the godlike birth of the Redeemer and the last fulfilment of the work of the Judge of the world, the saddest of all pictures, that of the Saviour suffering on the cross, had likewise attained to its height of perfection; and this remained the archetype of the countless representations of martyred saints, their agonies illumined by the bliss of transport. Here the portrayal of bodily pain, with the instruments of torture and their wielders, already led the artists down to the common actual world, whose types of human wickedness and cruelty surrounded them beyond escape. And then came "Characteristique," with its multiple attraction for the artist; the consummate "portrait" of even the vulgarest criminal, such as might be found among the temporal and spiritual princes of that remarkable time, became the painter's most rewarding task; as on the other hand, he early enough had taken his motives for the Beautiful from the physical charms of the women in his voluptuous surroundings.
>The last sunset flush of artistic idealising of the Christian dogma had been kissed by the morning glow of the reviving Grecian art-ideal: but what could now be borrowed from the ancient world, was no longer that unity of Greek art with Antique religion whereby alone had the former blossomed and attained fruition. We have only to compare an antique statue of the goddess Venus with an Italian painting of the women chosen to impersonate this Venus, to perceive the difference between religious ideal and worldly reality. Greek art could only teach its sense of form, not lend its ideal content; whilst the Christian ideal had passed out of range of this sense-of-form, to which the actual world alone seemed henceforth visible. What shape this actual world at last took on, and what types alone it offered to the plastic arts, we will still exclude from our inquiry; suffice it to say that that art which was destined to reach its apogee in its affinity with religion, completely severing itself from this communion—as no one can deny—has fallen into utter ruin.

>>15360007
You seem insistent that I am in no way a thinker and that in all those words I said nothing. So what is your reason for responding? And why were you unable to answer the basic questions I asked?
If I have said nothing related to philosophy or true thought then that is certainly a problem, I agree, but nowhere do you explain this. If I am so lowly, then what are you? You should begin by explaining what true thought is and where it is that I have failed in this. Of course, we are just having a discussion and the depth of our questions can vary. Is this something you recognise? What you said are mostly banalities and claims regarding my thought that are without substance. You yourself have said little about Christianity, apart from it being a deep matter of the heart, and implying that it too can create great men. Is this all it comes down to? There is little to grasp in that, and much of it is a defense against your enemies.

This, I think, stems from a misunderstanding of what our discussion is about. First we were discussing the anarch, and part of the significance of this figure is its relation to nihilism, and in turn religion and the religious instinct. So when it comes to any particular religion it is only natural that within this discussion the arguments should surround the religion's strength in apprehending, or at least revealing, the religious instinct. Do you not agree with this? In either case, please clarify your understanding of philosophy and the purpose of religion.

As for rationalism and technical analysis, it is not my usual method. My writing tends to get me called a schizo, and there is perhaps a Narcissus quality to it (not in the sense of how that myth is normally interpreted). However, I'm not really opposed to rationalism, it is to some extent a necessity and indeed a gift of Prometheus - as I stated above, Schmitt's commentary basically eliminates any distinction between the rational and sensual. There is something beyond which suffuses itself within their force and character. This is what Nietzsche had misunderstood in the Apollonian and Dionysian, it remains a matter of technique, only in romantic terms. The idyllic appears differently to an outsider. Hephaestus reverses the distinction, he could destroy Apollo and Dionysus at any time.

>Now, in respect of plastic art it is palpable that its ideally creative force diminished in exact proportion as it withdrew from contact with religion. Betwixt those subhimest revelations of religious art, in the godlike birth of the Redeemer and the last fulfilment of the work of the Judge of the world, the saddest of all pictures, that of the Saviour suffering on the cross, had likewise attained to its height of perfection; and this remained the archetype of the countless representations of martyred saints, their agonies illumined by the bliss of transport. Here the portrayal of bodily pain, with the instruments of torture and their wielders, already led the artists down to [222] the common actual world, whose types of human wickedness and cruelty surrounded them beyond escape. And then came "Characteristique," with its multiple attraction for the artist; the consummate "portrait" of even the vulgarest criminal, such as might be found among the temporal and spiritual princes of that remarkable time, became the painter's most rewarding task; as on the other hand, he early enough had taken his motives for the Beautiful from the physical charms of the women in his voluptuous surroundings.
>The last sunset flush of artistic idealising of the Christian dogma had been kissed by the morning glow of the reviving Grecian art-ideal: but what could now be borrowed from the ancient world, was no longer that unity of Greek art with Antique religion whereby alone had the former blossomed and attained fruition. We have only to compare an antique statue of the goddess Venus with an Italian painting of the women chosen to impersonate this Venus, to perceive the difference between religious ideal and worldly reality. Greek art could only teach its sense of form, not lend its ideal content; whilst the Christian ideal had passed out of range of this sense-of-form, to which the actual world alone seemed henceforth visible. What shape this actual world at last took on, and what types alone it offered to the plastic arts, we will still exclude from our inquiry; suffice it to say that that art which was destined to reach its apogee in its affinity with religion, completely severing itself from this communion— as no one can deny—has fallen into utter ruin.


>>15294116
>he doesn't know about the omega and the alpha
You're thinking of the OT.

>tell me about the Erotic Novel you're writing /lit/

This is about the only board where you can actually talk about the stuff without it going full magical realm, because (in theory) this would be the board where you actually have people MAKE that shit.
Like how do I know objectively if this shit is actually doing it's job as an erotic novel?
Guys read this stuff too so how do you make something for both parties without alienating either?