/lit/ - Literature

deciding what is written for a political purpose will always be arbitrary. You can tether politics to anything and at the same time deny categorically that a piece of work was written for a political purpose and that its pertinence to politics was merely coincidental.

>>10266323
Just because something has political significance doesn't mean it was written to serve a political purpose. What matters is the intention, the legitimacy of what's expressed. So no, that definition does not preclude any large chunk of the western canon.

thjs guy is a fukken dumpass retard stop poating his stupid azz face every day thank you

>>10266323
Then according to that, 90% of his shit on YouTube is propaganda.

why are you feeding yet another /leftypol/ memerson thread?
just ignore and move on
go on, anon, you can do it
just
don't
bump

>>10266323
Dostoevsky - not art
Tolstoy - not art
Zola - not art
Manzoni - not art
Steinbeck - not art
Sinclair - not art

Wow.

>>10266323
>If so, isn't a large swath of the Western Canon not art?

Not really. Most of it was made to explore and create, even if it was to explore different political stances of the time or create new ones, which means the writer did not particularly have a stance before writing and did not seek to promote one simply because mommy and daddy pounded it into his skull like a religion as a kid.

Most artists in history are far too individualistic to prescribe themselves to a fashion of thought so mindlessly, which is what ideologues do.

how do I filter these threads?

>>10266546
Peterson threads are genuinely the most entertaining on this board by far

What about anything sculpted or painted?

>>10266763
T. Brainlet

>swath
please leave

>>10266783
What's the problem, friend?

>>10266348
Except 99% of the so-called Art produced these days is ostensibly political. Isn’t that hard really.

>>10266323
since when are there two things mutually exclusive

>>10266323
He is absolutely wrong. Typical pap from someone who's so immersed in neoliberal ideology he fails to see how everyday life is continuously trespassed by politics.

>>10266519
This doesn't mean anything, "explore, create", what weight do these words have in themselves? You're just trying to justify works you like which happen to be political, but still doesn't change the fact that Memerson is once again spouting shit he knows nothing about because the world would be a better place if it conformed to his WASP-via-Jung apollogetics.

>Most artists in history are far too individualistic to prescribe themselves to a fashion of thought so mindlessly, which is what ideologues do.
LMAO what the fuck are you even talking about, how can someone make such a generalizing and retarded claim for ideological reasons why calling other people ideologues.

>>10266378
Only decent post ITT
Are you guys actually retarded?

>>10266323
He's like Richard Dawkins, but for philosophy instead of atheism.

>>10267904
He has nothing to do with philosophy, though--he's a psychology professor.

>>10267910
That's the point. Dawkins is a biologist who thinks he's an expert on religion and theology despite not understanding it at all - just like this dipshit with philosophy.

>>10267893
>for ideological reasons

I'm talking about the psychological temperament of artists. So is Peterson. His claim is that artists who consciously create with the goal of pushing a political standpoint are not creating art. Well, they can still end up creating art (exemplary works that are pleasurable), but it will be weaker for it. It's a Nietzschean idea; it's why Nietzsche thought Greek tragedy declined with Euripides (because he injected a moral message in his tragedies whereas the prior simply celebrated emotions and life). It has to do with what the artist is trying to do -- if they simply want to create something that celebrates their viewpoint, with no other substance to it, it is propagandastic primarily.

I don't see how this is that much of a controversial claim. Seems obvious to me.

>>10267916
but he doesnt pretend to be a philosopher and has claimed numerous times that he is not one

>>10267945
"Temperament of artists" doesn't mean absolutely anything, it's pure melodramatic drivel masquerading as an actual position. You can't possibly derive a proper "temperament" from the majority of the artists in western history from their work or their biography, not to mention the multitude of artists whose work and personal life seem to be almost oposites.
I dont want to disagree with Nietzsche here but you have to be kind of soft in the head not to see both Aeschylus and Sophocles produced moralistic plays, and you probably don't even agree with Peterson that much on this one, considering he's a fan of Dostoievski, the biggest moralist to ever step on Earth.
You honestly don't seem that well versed in art and only seem to care about it as far as it reinforces whatever it is that you believe in, the fact that you think that you can draw a very clear line on what are the artist's true intentions and what is propaganda is a very clear indicator of this, and you should seriously start branching out more outside of what your Jungian Daddy tells you to

>>10267961
Yet he constantly makes baseless assumptions about philosophy.

>>10266323
Just the opposite - there's no such thing as apolitical art. Works which attempt to be neutral, tacitly endorse whatever system is currently in power, simply by virtue of NOT opposing it.

>>10267904
No, that would be the Tyson.

>>10267984
>this is your brain on /pol/

>>10267996
That sounded more like /leftypol/

>>10267996
This might have been a lie before the 20th century but it's been 100% true ever since.

>>10267984
>>10267996
>this is your brain on Nietzsche
ftfy

Does he think the Gulag Archipelago is art?

>>10267973
>the fact that you think that you can draw a very clear line on what are the artist's true intentions and what is propaganda
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Tear down Uffizi, blow up Guggenheim. True art should shine once again.

>>10268014
The Guggenheim has nothing to do with Soviet Realism, quite the contrary.
Funnily enough, something like The Birth of Venus, which is part of the Uffizi's permanent show, would have a lot of socio-political declarations for a renaissance critic which you completely miss today.

>>10266365
But does Peterson ever claim to make art?

>>10268036
There's no presupposition of this claim in his statement, brainlet.

>>10266323
>Is he right?
No

he's only wrong if you have a problem with accepting that you enjoy propaganda

>>10268041
Huh, well shit

>>10267973
>You can't possibly derive a proper "temperament" from the majority of the artists in western history from their work or their biography

You can to some degree when you look at the works they produce.

>you have to be kind of soft in the head not to see both Aeschylus and Sophocles produced moralistic plays

Their works do not contain moral messages. You can derive morals from their works, but that's just the audience bastardizing the plays because they are too stupid to experience them otherwise. It's not the same as a work that is driven by the desire to convince the audience of a particular moral (or political) position.

>You honestly don't seem that well versed in art

This coming from the guy who is saying all art is consciously driven to convince the audience of a political or moral stance.

>>10268047
>You can to some degree when you look at the works they produce.
You completely ignore the rest of the post in which I talk about that

>You can derive morals from their works, but that's just the audience bastardizing
Hot opinion

>all art is consciously driven to convince the audience of a political or moral stance.
Not all of it but much more than you can possibly know without studying it, something you clearly haven't.

>>10268053
>Hot opinion
>how I interpret the art is all that matters, not what the artist is thinking
>even though the discussion is about the intention behind the art i.e. what the artist was thinking
You're an idiot.

>Not all of it but much more than you can possibly know without studying it
I have studied plenty. The amount of art produced for beauty is immense.

>>10266378
All true

>>10268064
There is a world of middle ground between "how I interpret it" and "How the artist feels". One thing this middle ground has in common is that both the artist's intentions and the public's reception aren't to be counted on, since almost always, you won't have access to either. If you had studied art enough, you'd know that there are much more efficient and intelligent ways of evaluating any given work - formal cohesion, composition, technique, openness, blah blah blah - but who cares, right.
>The amount of art produced for beauty is immense.
"Beauty" as used in most of western art is very clearly a socio-political / moral ideal. Once again, scrutonites spouting shit they know nothing about.

>>10268076
>formal cohesion, composition, technique, openness, blah blah blah - but who cares, right.

I don't see how the scales of measurement pertaining to the technicalities and labor / skill behind an artwork have anything to do with this discussion since the discussion is about the themes and ideas being uplifted in the work. If you think there is something inherently political in this aspect then I suppose you think life is inherently political? Did the political exist before the human? All energy is political energy? etc.

You are a faggot.

>"Beauty" as used in most of western art is very clearly a socio-political / moral ideal.

No. They coincide at times but you are generalizing.

>>10268100
opennes and formal cohesion aren't technicality. And yes, human life is inherently political, at least in any historical level.

And it's not just that they coincide at times, there's also YOUR politization of beauty as a standard to be pursued by contemporary art, who has relegated beauty to another tool or option in the artist's toolset.

>>10268112
>human life is inherently political

Do you agree with this definition of "politics" on Dictionary.com?

"use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc."

Or Wikipedia's?

"Politics is the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state."

If so, are you really saying, with complete sincerity, that all of human action, motive, and desire, is in regards to making a decision for a group, establishing hierarchy in it and obtaining power within it? Does the individual really not exist in your mind?

>at least in any historical level.

What does this mean? "It is this case in all cases which I deem valid"? That's how it reads to me.

It's possible to be above or outside the herd. That is all.

>>10268047
>>10268064
>>10268100
I'm not the art anon, but you're clearly a fucking brainlet that can't stop churning out hot garbage and consider the very basic premises of what he's arguing. Artistic intent is most certainly not something clearly or even unclearly determinable. We have to this day a multitude of completely intrinsically coherent and valid different interpretations of the most classic of classics. Absolutely the same goes for public reaction - Olympia and VU&N's Banana were peak obscenity shock art when they were released charged with very powerful statements, yet look completely innocuous today.

>>10268137
>being brainlet to the point you don't understand the difference between teleological and inherent values
You probably don't purposefully aim to harm our climate every time you fart, but you most certainly do to some degree.

>>10268137
Your definition of politics from dictionary.com is either nitpicked or severly lacking, and the wikipedia one is rather short sighted.
Politics are what arise between humans in a organized society, the political is the sphere in which human life is lived beyond it's mere animal capabilities.

"Historical" as in post-pre-historic, organized, sedentary, political life. Any life beyond political life is merely animal life, and there's little distinction between a un-politic human and a bonobo.

>>10268138
>and consider the very basic premises of what he's arguing

Funny, that's how I feel about the opposition. You guys want the individual to conform to your groupthink "politics" as if the Greeks, the Romantic period and the recent birth of the individual never happened in history.

I acknowledge that these things may come about due to changes in political climate, but do you what makes changes in political climate? Changes in the philosophical. And it goes deeper than that, into the territory of the unknown. The political is not the be-all end-all, this is an extremely narrow and all too human view of life that asserts such a thing.

>Absolutely the same goes for public reaction - Olympia and VU&N's Banana were peak obscenity shock art when they were released charged with very powerful statements, yet look completely innocuous today.

But were these works created and shown to the public in order to convince the audience of something, or simply to make them feel? And if they are done for the former, why should we consider them art?

>>10268170
>recent birth of the individual never happened in history.
When will this meme end? It's not that enlightenment and post-enlightenment philosophy gave birth to the individual, it's just that they managed to adapt it well enough to the modern nation state. The "citizen" is one of the oldest institutions in the history of law.

>>10268170
You think you sound like Quentin thought he did but you sound like Quentin actually did.
Is that you Quentin? Wanna get high and play some CoD?

>>10266356
This is a fine distinction to make.

underrated

>>10268170
>You guys want the individual to conform to your groupthink "politics"
It's a simple truth that nigh everything has a degree of a political meaning that is non-discrete and not even precisely definite, heavily depending on the source of judgement and extraneous circumstances. The same goes for artistic value.
>were these works created and shown to the public in order to convince the audience of something, or simply to make them feel?
Why are those two mutually exclusive?
>why should we consider them art?
Why shouldn't we?

>>10268236
>It's a simple truth that nigh everything has a degree of a sexual meaning that is non-discrete and not even precisely definite, heavily depending on the source of judgement and extraneous circumstances. The same goes for artistic value.

I changed one word in the off chance that maybe you will realize how much you are generalizing right now.

>Why are those two mutually exclusive?

I exclude them from one another because of how different they are. The person who wants to feel, and make the audience feel (especially the way he feels), is an artist. The person who wants to think, and make the audience think (especially the way he thinks), is not an artist, but something very different. A politician maybe.

>Why shouldn't we?

That's not how you debate. I didn't mention those works, so demonstrate why I should consider them art, especially the Banana which does not make me feel anything at all.

>>10266323
He's only wrong to think that propaganda and art are mutually exclusive. He's also banking off of the negative connotation "propaganda" has (not to say it was given such a connotation without good reason).

>>10266323
No, Jordan just wants reading time to be a safe space from other ideas.

>>10268320
By your sole denial to recognize the politics present in everyday life one can see what you call propaganda is merely political art you disagree with, specially when you consider "Beauty" an absolute should strive for while conveniently ignoring that more than once during western history (much more than once), Beauty (or rather, different conceptions of Beauty, with a B) was used as a political standard as well as aesthetical.
One - not me though - could say the mere study of Art History as we do today, as a progression from proto art to the Renaissance to Romantism to Modernism and so on is a way to classify aesthetics in a political way.

>>10268320
>I changed one word in the off chance that maybe you will realize how much you are generalizing right now.
No, it just goes to show that you failed to realize my point. Everything can be interpreted politically and in a number of ways. It's just silly to suggest we could establish some objective cutoff point where something is "political" or not.
>The person who wants to feel, and make the audience feel (especially the way he feels), is an artist. The person who wants to think, and make the audience think (especially the way he thinks), is not an artist, but something very different. A politician maybe.
If you think that sole purpose of art is aesthetics, then there's no purpose to go on here - you have an understanding of art on the level of petit-bourgeois housewife. Sorry for the ad hominem, but this one is warranted.
>That's not how you debate. I didn't mention those works
I did and they are some of the finest and most revered pieces of art out there. That is the status quo. You are the one holding a position that these shouldn't be considered art because both can most certainly be described as charged with a good amount of political intent. Do defend.

>>10268349
>By your sole denial to recognize the politics present in everyday life

Everyday life =/= art. They are in fact the furthest away from each other as is possible for things to be away from each other.

>one can see what you call propaganda is merely political art you disagree with

Not true at all. I enjoy art, and I consider art as that which makes me feel the highest feelings. I've enjoyed art that affirms feelings of people across all kinds of attitudes and I particularly enjoy art that affirms the existence of all these things in a ceremonious way, like an epic or a space opera that contains various religious, political, and moral ligaments, with no preference to one or the other based on the political, religious, or moral contents but based on how much the work made me feel. You can produce a heart wrenching tragedy or romance or adventure from all kinds of social spheres. Feeling is what I enjoy and appreciate in art.

>Beauty was used as a political standard as well as aesthetical.

How art is (ab)used is irrelevant.

Fuck me. I didn't think this man could be even more of a brainlet than he already has shown himself to be. Of course it's art, absolutely irrespective of it's purpose. It might be good art, might be shit art, but it's art anyways.

Is the Aeneid art? Is Charles Dickens an artist?

>>10268395
Fine then, keep existing in your vaccuum in which romantism never ended so your suburban NEET life can feel more aristocratic, it ain't gonna change the world.
Art's separation of everyday life is a consensual interruption of it, but it's still relegated to a paper in everyday life, as understood by "public", "social", "human", blah blah blah life, you can use any of those terms if you're even trying to understand everyone else.
You can create whatever platitude you want, none of this will ever work as a even personal indicator that something is or isn't propaganda, let alone one that is actually relevant for the rest of humanity. The use of art is what makes it art, anyone even remotely versed in western art history should know it, since this is PRECISELY how our notion of Art started. The only thing irrelevant here are your hot opinions on the issue.

>>10268384
>It's just silly to suggest we could establish some objective cutoff point where something is "political" or not.

It is when you take your generalities as factual. Freud thought all energy was sexual. These generalities are what's silly; they're divorced from the reality they claim to be observing. I can't imagine how creatively bankrupt and boring the people behind them really are.

>you have an understanding of art on the level of petit-bourgeois housewife.

It may be true of housewives, but in this case they really would be more agreeable than your sorry ass. I suppose I am wrong to prefer quality meat over canned dog food because dogs also have this preference when given the option?

>I did and they are some of the finest and most revered pieces of art out there.

Revered among people like you? Yeah, holds no water as an argument for me.

>>10268395
>I consider art as that which makes me feel the highest feelings
Holy... You have to be over 18 to post here.

>>10268425
>so your suburban NEET life can feel more aristocratic

Everything might be political for you, but not for me. It has nothing to do with wanting to feel "more aristocratic." More human, maybe.

>The use of art is what makes it art, anyone even remotely versed in western art history should know it, since this is PRECISELY how our notion of Art started.

Why do you believe the words of dusty library historians over modern day art lovers?

>>10268455
None of what I said is particularly old. You don't sound like an art lover, you sound like an "being an art lover" idea lover

>>10268434
>It is when you take your generalities as factual. Freud thought all energy was sexual. These generalities are what's silly; they're divorced from the reality they claim to be observing. I can't imagine how creatively bankrupt and boring the people behind them really are.
It would be nice if you include a counterargument next time you reply. Literally *everything* can be interpreted to have a political message.
>I suppose I am wrong to prefer quality meat
This is embarrassing. Please read up on art. Gombrich, Harrison and Eco should start you off nicely.
>Revered among people like you?
Revered worldwide. If you're going to deny reality to this extent, why even engage?

>>10266323
>not realizing art is inherently political

>>10268467
>You don't sound like an art lover

But I would if I was talking about how "useful" art is to society rather than how god damn marvelously beautiful and impressive a work of art is to gaze at?

I guess all his work is propaganda then lmao

>>10268484
Art isn't useful at all, it's actually completely useless, and it's, amongst other things, from this uselesness that we manage to even conceptualize what we call "Art". Honestly dude, stop trying to pretend your subjective 17 yo experience of seeing pretty paintings is actually better or more well thought out than the actual conventions of art history.

>>10268484
That doesn't even make sense. Raw aesthetic pleasure that art bring is a major part of it's utility. You seemed like someone with a point at the beginning, yet slowly approaching "contrarian trying to win an internet argument" point. Could you maybe give a couple of examples of what you consider non-political art and political "non-art"?

>>10268475
>Literally *everything* can be interpreted to have a political message.

And that says something about the mind that does so only, like how the mind that thinks everything is sexual is just a "pervert." In the case of political messages, "tool" might be applicable.

>Please read up on art.

You have to eat quality meat, not read about it, to experience it. And I am not saying it is worthless to do any reading, I am just saying that your argument right now is worthless.

>Revered worldwide.

Among people like you.

>>10268516
>And that says something about the mind that does so only
It's not a special worldview of mine. It's basic critical theory, you fucking brainlet. There are still ongoing debates to this day as to Dosto's true intentions and convictions. Both extremes of him being a pious christian and a larping nihilist would allow us to interpret his body of work in completely different light and derive completely different political statements from it. Even more so when we consider the complex political situation in Russia and even more so when we consider his personal connections and *even more so* when we consider his personal affections and vices. You're not going to arrive at some definite answer in the end, you're going to have a giant spectrum of possibilities and where the end result is as reliant on personal interpretation as it is on the facts. I don't know how much of a mental midget do you have to be to not understand this.
>You have to eat quality meat
Fucking kill yourself and your inane food analogies. You're the steak well-done philistine that proclaims anything else to be uneatable.
>Among people like you.
Yes, among the people with at least some semblance of understanding of art. Clearly Manet's body of work is worthless trash and Musee d'Orsay is run by retards because you the smartest underage boy alive don't like it.

>>10268508
>non-political art

I just watched Edge of Tomorrow this past weekend. I thought it was enjoyable as a movie, and started reading All You Need is Kill yesterday as a result, which so far I enjoy as a book (I like the concept and plot of both, but there's of course unique aspects of each medium I'm enjoying as well). I don't see much in the way of politics being driven in these works or in the pleasure derived from them.

>political "non-art"

Hard to say, because a lot of works have artistic value to them, even if they are driven by the desire to convince the audience of a political stance. It's just that there are works with artistic value that don't have them, and artistic value is separate from those contents or desires.

all writing serves a discursive function you twat

>>10268621
>Hard to say, because a lot of works have artistic value to them
Wow, so you can't name anything essentially restating what other two posters told you? Brilliant.
>scifi mass entertainment
>high artistic merit
Dear god. Why are you in a discussion about art?

>>10266378
this. something isn't art if it serves only to promote an ideology ie milk and honey

>>10268573
>It's not a special worldview of mine.

I didn't say it is, but you and everyone who shares it are still special. Get me?

>There are still ongoing debates to this day as to Dosto's true intentions and convictions.

Whatever aspect of them is up for debate is besides the artistry of his writing and storytelling. I don't exactly consider all his work artistic anyway. My favorite of his in White Nights, in fact.

>You're the steak well-done master race that proclaims anything else to be uneatable.

Appreciate the acknowledgement.

>Yes, among the people with at least some semblance of understanding of art.

Among socialites who conform art to their socializing needs, the wealthy who conform art to their status, and historians who conform art to their sterilized view of life from the third floor of the university library you mean. Tell me, what's the political aspect of The Tell-Tale Heart?

>>10266378
This.

Memerson says this shit and then goes on to say that Dostoevsky is his favourite novelist.

>>10268670
>it's not artistic if it has mass entertaining appeal

But I thought the other guy's viewpoint was valid because it was worldwide?

Guess what, dipshit? What I consider art is not what you consider art and vice versa. There's millions who side with me as well. But you have the "academy" on your side, so your thought on the matter is more valid (and not totally more dependent on what the higher social status thinks merely because they have higher social status), right?

>>10268694
>There's millions who side with me as well.
Yes, there are millions of halfwits, that doesn't make their shared views any more impressive or sound.
>But you have the "academy" on your side, so your thought on the matter is more valid
Academia is not united in the view on art and there are many schools of thought and outlooks on philosophy of art. My position is not "more valid" it simply is valid, being intrinsically logically coherent and consistent. There are many different and opposing ones that are too. What isn't valid is "art is whatever I deem appropriate to call art". I'm more or less convinced I'm replying to a child now, so have a last (You) and good night. Good luck with your flat-earther crusade in art theory.

>>10266323
A lot of medieval European paintings and statues were commissioned by the Catholic Church. The Church commisssioned them for purposes that can be considered political, namely to increase the power and prestige of the Church in an era where the Church is a potent political actor. Are they not art?

who gives a fuck what he thinks

>>10268725
>My position is not "more valid" it simply is valid

Damn, the conceit in this one!

I'll leave you with a quote from my good friend, German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche:

>What is essential in art remains its perfection of existence, its production of perfection and plenitude; art is essentially affirmation, blessing, deification of existence— What does a pessimistic art signify? Is it not a contradictio?— Yes.— Schopenhauer is wrong when he says that certain works of art serve pessimism. Tragedy does not teach "resignation"— To represent terrible and questionable things is in itself an instinct for power and magnificence in an artist: he does not fear them— There is no such thing as pessimistic art— Art affirms. Job affirms.— But Zola? But the Goncourts?— The things they display are ugly: but that they display them comes from pleasure in the ugly— It's no good! If you think otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves.

tl;dr a genius does not see politics as essential to art. More valid than anyone else you could namedrop. Peterson is wrong, but you are more-so.

>>10268683
>I didn't say it is, but you and everyone who shares it are still special
You don't make your case any better by throwing an "oily smarts" ad hom.
>I'm talking about the psychological temperament of artists.
>Whatever aspect of artist's true intentions and convictions is up for debate is besides the artistry
Well, this was a great waste of time. Thanks for playing, autistic retard.

To be honest, my only problem with Peterson. It's such an impossible high standard.

Because he says it like he want to author to just "come up" with something that proves something.

>>10268764
No one said politics is essential to art, what everyone is arguing is that it's impossible to separate both in the first place, something which Nietzsche refuses to touch upon (I'll admit I'm not sure how prevalent the notion of life as political in itself was in his times, not even if it existed, but it doesn't change the fact that today, this is how we came to see it, and most people who aren't autists playing le enlightened aesthete came to agree with).

>>10268804
>No one said politics is essential to art
>what everyone is arguing is that politics is inseparable from art

Alright...

>>10268684
and?

>>10268047
>You can derive morals from their works, but that's just the audience bastardizing the plays because they are too stupid to experience them otherwise

Read Aristotle's Poetics you illiterate.

>>10266356
>What matters is the intention, the legitimacy of what's expressed.
i think thats what he was saying though

>>10266323
I guess pic related isn't art. Nice to learn something new every day

>>10266323
>Jordan Memerson says anything with a political purpose in it can't be art
>cites Dostoevsky as one of his favorite authors
The Brothers Karamazov literally features an entire chapter where Ivan argues with a liberal (the actual definition of liberal, not the American buzzword for the brainlets who browse this board and don't actually read) about how the separation of church and state is an inherently flawed concept and if ecclesiastical courts took over society would objectively be better

>>10267865
>Except 99% of the so-called Art produced these days is ostensibly political.
Where does that statistic come from?

>>10268833
Politics is essential to human life, art is a part of human life, but art can be made with no aparent political intent, it's just bound to generate political meanings once it's out in the world

>>10269001
>Politics is essential to human life

Define politics. We've been around for many years before civilization existed.

>>10269021
We've been through this already, and pre-historic "art" isn't art by the western standards, we only use the term because it had a very different social function from art (another thing we've been through as well).

i'm seriously tired of arguing with you so just read pic related if you want to know more, I'm off to get drunk and forget this useless discssion.

>>10266323
Anything created by a person is propaganda as it will naturally be instilled with the values of that individual

>>10269031
Politics is not essential to human life if human life precedes politics. It's just not true.

>>10268764
>Nietzsche said it therefore it's true
Eh?

>>10269040
It's not a chain of events, more a holistic system. In that sense politics can't be seen without human life and the other way around.

>>10269086
But what is political about The Tell-Tale Heart? I never got a response on that... if there are things which aren't politically natured, and which can be enjoyed despite any political factors, how can you say what you just did?

>>10269040
then you should start shitting in the woods and hunting your food alone.
Society is inherently political

>>10269116
The way I look at essential qualities of things is this. Essential qualities are those things without which a thing stops existing like it does. So when we look at a human being, filled with all its systems of beliefs (not even the particular beliefs, but the systems which makes beliefs to come about), and we assume those systems are colored by politics, we cannot look at a human life without looking at politics too.

Apart from that, i just joined the discussion. I have to read back for the first comment you made.

>>10269116
>>10269138
>read back
I'm not familiar with the book apart from the summary i just read on Wikipedia. However, i'll make an effort to discern a political influence on something in the way the main character rationalizes.

So, the main character killed someone and subsequently is feeling all kinds of feelings (guilt being one of the most prominent). Since he is feeling guilt, we can assume the main character isn't without a concience; he has a certain moral valuesystem imposed on him which makes him feel certain things by judging them to be right or wrong. Again, he killed someone (something 'bad') and is feeling guilt (he judges the thing to be 'bad', and is feeling something accordingly). This vauesystem which judges his action doesn't come falling out of the sky. They are Christian values. This is also one of Petersons objections on hard-Atheists. When dismissing a whole of Christianity, we also dismiss the Christian values. Values which are deeply inbedded in our western society. When we dismiss the complete Christian value system, there is nothing that will tell us it's bad to kill someone, when it's in MY INTEREST TO DO SO. Basing your values on your own interest is already something which has a prominent position in neo-liberal society; narcissists for example have better chances when engaging in professional life.

Value systems are inherent to human life, and are colored by political life.

>>10269192
>he hasn't read The Tell-Tale Heart

Damn dude.

Well, you make a good point in that there is a value system in place between the characters which can be traced eventually down to political influences. To bring this back to the thread topic though: this doesn't really say anything about the artist's intention behind the piece, or the audience's enjoyment of it, or whether we should value it at all based on those political premises that serve only as the backdrop of the piece.

I think the overall point of Peterson's statement is that political purposes do not define art. Art is more than the political, and the political does not have to even be the secondary focus in art, much less the primary. And we do not experience art for political purposes; if you are only interested in art that serves specific political purposes then you are not an art lover at all and you do not really know what art is about.

>>10269116
When I read The Tell-Tale Heart as a kid I thought it was about telling the truth and how remorse could destroy a man.
But critics also see a conflict between the father's authority and the son but also between rationality and irrationality.
Even if this isn't a strictly political statement it reveal a particular (and personal) world view. I don't know enought about Poe's life and ideas to be able to offer you a better insight.

Now answer to this: is religious art, art? Pretty much every painting and statue in every catholic church is there because illiterate paesants needed to be indoctrinated into the dominant world view. aka propaganda

Answer to this: is Renaissance art, art? Remember pretty much every italian art from Renaissance were created to celebrate the political and economical power of powerful princes, oligarchs or popes. aka propaganda

>>10269271
>is X art?

If it makes you feel, and you praise it, it's art to you. That's my take, not Peterson's.

When I read it as a kid, I thought it was a confession of Poe's. Whether he actually did anything like that or not was irrelevant; he felt it and expressed that through his language expertise. And I felt it too by reading it. And I admired that he could make me feel it. I don't think in all cases of art there's more to it than this, sometimes it's just this.

>>10269235
>I think the overall point of Peterson's statement
There's no need for apologetics. His statement is quite clear and it's just plain wrong.
>political purposes do not define art
Of course they do. Existence of "purely aesthetic" art pieces does not change the fact that an absolutely gigantic amount of works are both motivated by and carry political agenda. And that doesn't necessarily negatively impact artistic merit or impede on aesthetic goals. As someone else remarked itt - most of Botticelli's corpus is quite political, yet you wouldn't even be able to extract this without specialized and deep period knowledge. For the absolute majority of observers those are just breathtaking masterpieces.

>>10269297
>if I like it it's art

>>10269271
>religious art is propaganda

I actually hope you die

>>10269341
I think he was making a point to illustrate Peterson's faulty statement.

>>10269331
>I praise things I'm indifferent to

You don't. Stop pretending you do.

Yes, he is. Understanding the difference between art and propaganda is essential to realizing the Jewish problem. When you realize how much propaganda is put out by the jew you realize how much of an issue the jew is to western civilization and how much control the jew has over western culture.

>>10269325

>Of course they do.

Define as in be what art is about. You can't be serious if you knew that's what I meant.

And go fuck yourself with your "specialized and deep period knowledge." You are a pseud if you think art is or should be about anything other than feeling. There is plenty out there to make you think, the entire world of nonfiction, you don't need to inject your boring bullshit into the one area that is dominated by aesthetics and the lusting of beauty. And it is indeed dominated by that, unlike what your revisionist faggot historians and professors tried convincing you, who did not so much as listen to and enjoy a single piece of music in their entire sad lives.

>>10269389
Are you unironically mentally disabled? Art is not a word of praise, you slobbering retard. It's a categorical noun. There's good art and bad art; complex and simple art; art I like and art I don't like; art you like and art you don't like. Neck yourself, terminal case.

>>10269389
>Art is only what I like

this is your problem, you live with very personal and subjective impressions of everything but for some reason you get shocked when people don't agree with your retarded arbitrariousness.

>>10269449
>There's good art and bad art;

Is Art of War filled with good military tactic tips and bad military tactic tips? Are art galleries filled with mounds of rotting corpses covered in shit and piss? Do people talk about the thousands of other paintings made throughout human history that historians and civilizations did not bother to record and preserve? Did the Greeks make sculptures out of ugly deformed babies rather than abandon them to the elements to die alone?

Your understanding of art is recent but not an evolution of the prior understanding. It's a stupidity.

>>10269431
>go fuck yourself
>you are a pseud
>boring bullshit
>revisionist faggot
>sad lives
wtf I love art now

>>10269489
>gets called out on his retardation
>simulates insanity and spews sophistry
Smart move, brainlet.

>>10268187
You are degenerating the intellectual atmosphere of /lit/. please leave this forum.

>>10269506
>simulates insanity

When in Rome...

>>10266323
>Is he right?
No

>>10268621
Politics are just memes, that is to say ideas that self replicate. If you think of it as the memes using people to replicate instead of people consciously doing things it makes sense. Powerful memes have some agency
>>10266323

>>10269452
And your problem is you can't think for yourself. You depend on others so much you have no emotions that are your own. Thankfully I don't relate, and will never be caught dead calling some ugly shit I can't stand or am indifferent to "beautiful" or "art" just because some stuck up rich guy said it is.

>>10269521
>more deflection bullshit
Exceptional. Ignorance, zeal, sophistry, aggressiveness. Truly an exemplary Kermit follower.

>>10269560
Philosophy is sophistry to the unphilosophical, i.e. the dumbass Anglos that perpetuate all the garbage you've been spouting in this thread.

>>10266323
>Anything written to serve a political purpose is propaganda, not art
>*favorite book is Gulag Archipelago*

hurr durr

>>10269552
>it's only art if I like it
Do you not understand the semantics of the word art or is this just autistic contrarianism at this point? It's precisely as idiotic as saying "it's only food if I like it".
>caught dead calling some ugly shit I can't stand or am indifferent to "beautiful"
Literally nobody is arguing in this thread that you should like what you don't like or like particular art pieces. You're arguing with strawmen you set up yourself.

>>10269576
Did he call it art though?

>>10266364
>Stupid azz
Wow you're smart.

>>10269581
he clearly thinks it's something more than mere propaganda

>>10269572
>Philosophy is sophistry to the unphilosophical
There's nothing philosophical in your autism. You got called out on misusing the word "art" purely linguistically and went on to engage in autistic word game rambling.
>Anglos
Most prolific art theorists were Italians, Germans and Austrians.

>>10269577
>Literally nobody is arguing in this thread that you should like what you don't like or like particular art pieces.

Man, you guys really don't consider my position at all when you write, do you? Obviously I think that you all are doing exactly this when you say there is "bad art" or "ugly art" which appears completely oxymoronic to me. And there's more than enough examples supporting me — ancient Greece, for example, being a huge manufacturer of art, all of which is unbelievably beautiful, to such an extent that their work still serves and provides the standard for it today, and the immense number of creative works which are driven by the emotions, and all of the times the word art is used in relation to beauty or "the best" throughout history. And I find it appalling that anyone would assert that human emotions can all be packed into the political hemisphere.

>>10269588
>You got called out on misusing the word "art"

"Bad art" and "ugly art" is a misuse, not the other way around. Or we wouldn't have things like "culinary arts."

>>10266348
>categorically
categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically categorically

>>10266378
Starship Troopers - not art

Wow.

>>10267865

Completely subjective. People like to label things and use various analytic theories that addresses their own personal worldviews. They are generally wrong and I am fucking tired of it. You can apply feminist analysis for instance to fucking anything. You can apply racial theories and accuse the Jews of making anti white propaganda just because a black actress in the film is married to a white guy, but there is nothing necessarily inherently political about it.

>>10269651
>"bad art" or "ugly art" which appears completely oxymoronic
It isn't. Poorly conceptualized or poorly executed art pieces are indeed bad and/or ugly art.
>Or we wouldn't have things like "culinary arts."
This is neither an argument nor a valid one if it weren't logically inconsistent. "Art" is a polyseme and your jumping across different meanings basically engaging in sophistry as another anon pointed out.

>>10269714
>Poorly conceptualized or poorly executed art pieces are indeed bad and/or ugly art.
But they are not Art.

>>10266323
All art is propaganda

>>10269741
Orwell was a weasel.

>>10266323

>>10269724
>art
>the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also: works so produced

Many things are art and most is shit.

Art isn't some profoundly transcendent status. Kindergarteners paint art with their fingers.

Stop taking this shit so seriously.

>tries to defend memerson
>contradicts himself
>tries into philosophy of art
>calls everyone retarded and reees about evil """academy"""
>tries into aesthetic judgement
>argues dictionary definitions and plays private language games

>this whole thread

>>10269753
Are examples of static art provided?

>>10268047
>You can to some degree when you look at the works they produce.
You can individually, but not in general like Peterson does. Ergo, "the temperament of artists" is a completely meaningless bullshit term.

>>10269770
That book title and image are rather endearing actually

That word didn't have the stigma it did back then

>>10269763
Art, not art, fool.

>>10269777
Joyce's work, given that it is his formula
More than that is beyond my knowing

>>10269783
Art, not Art, silly goose.

>>10269431
>You are a pseud if you think art is or should be about anything other than feeling. There is plenty out there to make you think, the entire world of nonfiction, you don't need to inject your boring bullshit into the one area that is dominated by aesthetics and the lusting of beauty.

People like you are everything that's wrong with the world of art.

>>10269790
I agree with the image of choice. Good effect.

>>10269790
"My Latin quarter hat. God, we simply must dress the character."

>>10266378
Also, Solsenitsin's anti-commie propaganda: art

>>10269051
>One of the greatest philosophers discussed the philosophy of art
>But anons are more credible on the subject

Sure.

>>10269790
kek

>>10269588
I'm back to this thread after a while and I gotta be honest: I'm not one inclined to agree with our anglo-saxonic friends but that dude we're all arguing with has certainly given some merit to people like Danto, for example.

>>10269850
>Nietzsche
>philosophy of art
Are you fucking drunk? If anything, Nietzsche autistically rambled against philosophers concerned with even a passing glance of a suficient aesthetic theory while rambling on about nothing in tragedy.
I fucking love Nietzsche, but his advice only works for creators, not consumers of art.

>>10266323
Don't all religious texts serve political purposes, Jordan?

>>10270727
You don't get it, propaganda means politics *I DON'T LIKE* specifically

>The good and the beautiful.— Artists continually glorify — they do nothing else — all those states and things that are reputed to give man the opportunity to feel good for once, or great, or intoxicated, or cheerful, or well and wise. These select things and states, whose value for human happiness is considered safe and assured, are the artists' objects. Artists always lie in wait to discover such objects and draw them into the realm of art. What I mean is that they rae not themselves the appraisers of happiness; rather they try to get close to those who make the appraisals, with the utmost curiosity and the urge to utilize these appraisals immediately. Since they have, in addition to this impatience, also the big lungs of heralds and the feet of runners, they are also always among the first to glorify the new good; and they therefore appear to be the first to call it good, to appraise it as good. But this is, as I have said, an error: they are merely quicker and louder than the real appraisers. —But who are the real appraisers?—The rich and the idle.
Nietzsche, The Gay Science

>But let me explain here the one thing Nietzsche never explained. He said that art is affirmation. He said it again and again. But he never got around to explaining exactly why. Why, for example, could art not be negation? Or indifference? Or complete and utter randomness and arbitrariness? Here then is the answer: Art is creation. But to create (— more precisely, to transform something into something else, for the concept "creation" is strictly speaking meaningless, since nothing can be created out of nothing; what actually always occurs is transformation of one or more things into something else, for example of paint and canvas into a painting —) one needs first to select — creation presupposes selection; indifference and arbitrariness are therefore out of the question in the artistic act, for one never selects arbitrarily — "arbitrary selection" is a contradictio in adjecto; that the selection process might be carried on to a great extent unconsciously (as it often is in great art) is no objection to this proposition. Either way, whether selection occurs consciously or unconsciously, criteria and value judgements are, as I have already explained, continuously at play, and in the last resort even the highest consciousness contains in it — is based upon — a certain degree of unconsciousness. Therefore, since art entails selection, and since selection is a form of affirmation — art is affirmation and cannot be conceived of otherwise (— let alone as negation, which finds expression in destruction; as the exact opposite, that is to say, of the necessarily creative artistic act).
Alex Kierkegaard, On the Genealogy of Art Games

>>10271508
In response to >>10270724

>>10271508
>he outs himself as icycalm shill
well that explains a thing or two

>>10271522
What's that explain, pray tell?

>>10269684
Nice try, Shlomo.

>>10266323
truth is subjective
everything is propaganda

>>10266364
diz

>>10266374
bump

>>10270751
true
>stoplikingwhatidontlike.jpg

>>10269667
You rustled me.
Like the movie, it made me think:
Is it cancer, is it portraying cancer or is it cancer portraying cancer?
A..am I the cancer?
>SON! Quick, quit your VSH recording, a plane flew into a tower.

>>10271859
Nice.webm is nice indeed

Someone name some apolitical piece of art quick.

>>10271903
The faggiest vampire
The kobold wizzard's dildo of enlightenment +2
The baby Jesus buttplug

>>10271903
Note that the quote from Peterson isn't talking about the artpiece itself but the artist's conscious intent. So that covers quite a lot of art, virtually anything created for beauty's sake.

>>10271981
>The faggiest vampire
>The kobold wizzard's dildo of enlightenment +2
>The baby Jesus buttplug
SAUCE!
>slow heavy metal music
SAAAAAAUUUUUUUUCE!

>>10272046
https://www.amazon.com/Faggiest-Vampire-Carlton-Mellick-III/dp/1933929804

https://www.amazon.com/Kobold-Wizards-Enlightenment-Adventure-Players/dp/1936383055

https://www.amazon.com/Baby-Jesus-Butt-Plug/dp/0972959823

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWuYyxr8LdI

>>10272046
>amazon
no free download?
soniamdisappoint.jpg
also
i-is that her voice?

>>10272151
I've once found a torrent on thepiratebay containing some of his books, but I don't know if these were featured. {thepiratebay is blocked and am not in a position atm to reach a vpn/tor}.
The mentioned books I've purchased and are worth it [The faggiest vampire is a children's book and the print version is better to read because of the format, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not in ebook format] (also some others of him but they might be more political).

And yes, angela gossow, she's gone for a few years now, though they have a replacement. I can't really talk for the replacement: I haven't bought an album since her.

Live:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PUu3QajgTE

>>10272092
That slow heavy metal music is shit try this one instead https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SKsysEU4oo

>>10272186
>the faggiest vampire is a children's book
kek
only on 4chan
i-i don't really know where to stand about this angela gossow person desu

>>10272210
Yeah, it was technically death metal anyway
>>10272212
pic related

>>10271981
>The baby Jesus buttplug

>>10267893
all diz

>*unzips actual theory of aesthetics*

>>10272389

carlton mellick just writes lolrandumxd shit for idiot teenagers

>10271508
>art is affirmation and cannot be conceived of otherwise (— let alone as negation, which finds expression in destruction
Not sure I get it. Dont you need to destroy a rock to make a statue? Even, dont you need to destroy photographies to make a collage? What about performance art? If I destroy something into a pile of rubble to make a statement or purely for aesthetic reason, why wouldnt it be art?
Isnt it overall more logical and explanatory to say that the process of art making isnt in the hand of the creator, but in the eye of the person that categorize it as such?

>>10272424
It's only random if you read the synopsis from goodreads/amazon.

The stories itself are pretty good, I recommend Adolf in Wonderland.

>Or did you actually already read some of his works to get to your tumblresque conclusion?

>>10272446
nigga you're 14

pic related was basically made as a propaganda piece, but still remains influential and one of the best films of all time. think about that one JP

>>10266323
I always held this belief, never knew Peterson did too
Perhaps I ought to check him out after all

>>10272449
I was when The baby jesus buttplug came out, got it 7-8 years later though :/

>The 14 year old 4-chinned nigga
Thanks, gonna make mad bucks now.

>>10266323
What is his argumentation behind this?

ITT: plebabbies butthurt about realising that the things they liked were propaganda

>>10268014
>Tear down Uffizi
What is wrong with you?

Can we ban Jordan Peterson threads from /lit/?

He doesn't write literature or do literary criticism. These threads really should be on /his/.

>>10266323
>JBP discredits all of his work and fame as propaganda.

Bucko cleaned his room a little too much.

>>10266378
I don't know how Peterson could say that his system wouldn't make Steinbeck propaganda, but he can salvage Tolstoy and Dostoevsky for sure. Dostoevsky, as a writer, would explore ideas and have them clash. Peterson's explanation, I believe, would be that something like Brother's Karamazov had not explicit objective but was just an exploration of various ideas that he allowed to clash without fully working out the outcome until. The book itself was a process of thinking rather than a fully fleshed out thought meant to persuade people of certain ideas.

>>10266323
>>Anything written to serve a political purpose (rather than to explore and create) is propaganda, not art.
>Is he right? If so, isn't a large swath of the Western Canon not art? Genuine question

If that is a quote, JBP is incorrect. Works can serve a political purpose without serving a political cause. For example, Orwell's criticism of government both explored human nature in general and examined human government in particular. It is art, and a meditation on our failures as a species, but does not advocate for any political purpose (except a preference for man's natural, free state).

>>10272430
Did you read the full quote? Transformation is required in creation, yes, but there is a deliberation on the part of the artist when the artist selects the things to transform and join together in order to "create" the new work, and selection is not negation but the opposite.

>>10266378
There's a difference between expressing your political opinions in your work and writing to serve a political purpose, retard

>>10273275
Tell that to the whole thread, man. No one here gets it.