/lit/ - Literature

Film wasn't invented yet.

No.

>>10449718
Unfortunately Schopenhauer didn't have the foresight to see the coming of anime.

>>10449724
a bad film can be completely carried by excellent music alone

He hadn’t read Flaubert or any other modern literary fiction, just Don Quixote and Tristam Shady and whatnot

>>10449718
No. Music is interesting though. At turns wonderful and infuriating. The problem with music for me is that the more it embeds itself in your head the more it becomes a torment rather than a catharsis. Folk music and mechanical reproduction, contrast with orchestral piece performance. Classical music often feels fresh to me. Music is frightening in how it can influence you. The power of cheap tunes.

Literature is richer. Music is maybe heavier, but more diluted.

>>10449718
Poetry is the highest form of art.

>>10449718
Read this.

>>10449742
Don't badmouth TS you Romish water drinker

"without music, life would be a mistake" -Nietzsche

>>10449728
Not even close. The excellent music will certainly stand out, but no single aspect of a bad film can redeem it

>>10449997
shit book desu

>>10449718
video games werent invented yet

>>10450060
It's a pretty solid follow up to Nietzsche on the subject, actually.

the highest art form is aerospace engineering

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

>>10450090
Nietsche did not write about "art games", actually.

>>10450174
Seems like you didn't read it then. The genealogy covers the history of art and uses Nietzsche's arguments as its basis.

>>10450079

Came here to shitpost this

>>10450237
Despite having "genealogy" in the title it shows no respect for Nietzshe's ideas. It's a polemics book about contemporary art from a guy who wants to shit on it and thinks it'll make him look like an ubermensch. Find better art history books.

>>10449728
best filmmakers don’t even like using music

>>10450116
100 years ago it was

>>10450272
Why do you wrap genealogy in quotes? It employs the same critical style as Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality, cites a number of real world examples, and covers enough art history to make its points.

Define contemporary art, because he doesn't shit on it. What he does is argue for his own contemporary art, a very real kind, that is appreciated by many more than just him.

>Find better art history books.
Which ones cover the latest artforms like video games? Point me in the direction and I'll read them.

Video games aren't an art form, unless you think oil painting is also an art form.
protip: painting is the art form.

>>10449718
if you mean classical music, yes

if you mean your whyte bands and rock and hip hop music, no its filth

scuptor, painting, engravings and dance are still more beautiful mediums for human creativity in my mind. but, classical does sit right at the heights with all the great masterpieces from those types of art. its just that this took thousands of years to achieve and then immediately fell into disarray and disintegration.

Reiterating: yes if you are excluding popular music, folk music, hip hop and rock of all varities it is indeed

>>10450306
So, games are an artform? What is your point?

>>10450320
My point is that this book sucks big time.
Games and toys are folk art, deal with it.

>>10450330
10/10 critique, gonna go burn my copy now.

>highest form of art
What the fuck qualifies 'highest'? If you listen to music that's regarded as high art and it does nothing for you then what's the point? If you get more emotional impact out of a different medium than why shouldn't that be the highest form of art for you?

>>10450350
Just because you enjoy something doesn't mean it's art. There's obviously a pleasurable aspect to the determination and ranking of art, but it's more than that.

>>10450356
Who's the arbiter of what constitutes art then if it isn't up to the individual to decide?

>>10450339
>the book is good enough to be published in a physical format

>>10450359
History, doofus.

>>10450368
History isn't some sentient homogenous entity you fuckass, it's a collection of individuals across generations who collectively came to a consensus over a long period of time

>>10450376
How is that a problem? A little self-centered, are you?

>>10450359
Critics.

>>10449718
Yes, because it's the most abstract (provided it's just music and not music with vocalized words). That was literally his argument for why you should believe this by the way, so people saying "film" or "poetry" are totally missing the point.

Yes
Those excluding rock and rap are Apollonian retards

>>10450382
>How is that a problem?
Not that guy, but you're retarded.

>>10450400
tfw concept art is more abstract than music

>>10450407
Why do you say that? Do you really need somebody to tell you what is and what isn't art?

>>10450382
All I'm saying is that it still comes down to arbitrary individual standards
If a composer was retrospectively influential, that influence is decided on by each individual composer who took influence from them. Perhaps historians are more or less objective in deciding which composers were more influential than others and then these composers are the ones who made 'art', but this isn't based on anything other than those who were influenced being emotionally impacted by the music and attempting to replicate it.

I don't see what other standard there is for what constitutes art other than individuals deciding it and then that decision appearing solidified because enough time has passed and the consensus among other individuals has grown

>>10450383
Critics are still individuals, what standard do they have to measure against? Beethoven' s 7th symphony was critically lampooned for using dissonance, retrospectively critics have decided It's one of the greatest pieces ever made, and the fallibility of individual opinion being used as some sort of objective standard was revealed once again

People respond differently to different forms of art. We should celebrate this rather than fight about what's the "objectively" highest form. By placing different but equal values on music, literature, dance, cinema, painting, any combination of these, etc. we can know that they're all valued and appreciated.

Just like we appreciate the work done by physicians and engineers alike, we don't fight what's "best" between computers and vaccines.

>>10450431
Yes, in my experience it does comes down to arbitrary standards, I agree. But then the discussion devolves into a matter of taste.

Having said that, I like your example because the subtle dynamics of art-making may be at their most noticable when posterity rehabilitates an artist who was not considered in his time.

>>10450451
Thank you sensible anon

>>10449742
Nietzsche continued Schopenhaur's line of thought in BT and dismissed the novel as a further debasement of of Apollonian-Dionsyian art (the only respectable art tbhq) as poetry became subordinate and was used more as a tool for narrative (i.e., "lul muh logical forms sterile abstractions plot character woowee look at me go") rather than for its own sake.

>>10450451
>relative response
>relative merit
What to do with all this ressentiment

>>10449724
Now this is an interesting claim

What films would you consider as representing will? My first thought is Solaris but my knowledge of cinema is reddit tier.

>>10450477
There's nothing relativistic about what I posted.

>>10450453
Okay yeah, agreed then. I just find the tag 'highest' misleading if it all comes down to a matter of taste because it seems to imply adherence to some objective third party

>>10450482
There Will be Blood
Sunshine
>Revenant
Groundhog Day
The Fountain
Shawshank Redemption

>>10450350
>le emotive subjectivity
Truly the reddit of artistic perspectives

>>10450409
>concept art is more abstract than music
No it isn't.
Music (again, provided it's without language using vocals) is pure will. Concept art is not.
>Unlike all of the other arts, which express or copy the Ideas (the essential features of the phenomenal world), Schopenhauer affirmed that music expresses or copies the will qua thing in itself, bypassing the Ideas altogether. This puts music and the Ideas on a par in terms of the directness of their expression of the thing in itself (WWR I, 285). In order to understand Schopenhauer's reasoning for this rather stunning view of the cognitive significance of music, one needs to pay attention to the role of feeling in Schopenhauer's epistemology, and especially to the feeling of embodiment that a subject can experience by attending to ordinary acts of volition.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer-aesthetics/

>>10450497
Holy pleb, man.

>>10450497
Shawshank? Really? Gotta say I'm a bit skeptical now. But you started off with a strong one. It didn't stick well with me on the first viewing, but I'm about to go back and rewatch it. My friend raves about the use of sound in the opening scene where Daniel Day Lewis fucks his leg up.

>>10450485
Right, highest is nothing special, a little gross even. But it's still funny how people try to look smart by associating themselves with such ideas.

>>10450499
Disprove me then, I'm sure someone of your intelligence could put forth a good counterargument
(>>10450431)

>>10450482
Cinematogrophy, the way photographs are strung together could be considered similar to the sort of motion and vibration in music that schopey likened to the language of the will

But hat was his argument for music being the highest form of art?

>>10450523
It expresses the will, others do not!

>>10450482
Anything from Andrei Tarkovsky, Ingmar Bergman, Kurosawa, Buñuel, Truffaut, Fellini, Kobayashi, Malick...

>>10449776
this.

>>10449757
It is ridiculous how every month, or so, a new dog-shit song comes out, but just like the song of before, it catches on and sticks. Digital instruments cobbled together with digital voices that still ring out in your head now and again.

>Literature is richer. Music is maybe heavier, but more diluted

To use M.Mcluhan's theory of hot and cold mediums; literature is high definition, or rich in detail, while music is low definition and sparsely detailed - that's not to say there's less detail in the latter.

>>10450523
See:
>>10450501
It's all about how music is the most abstract artform. Instead of being a production of appearances, it's nothing but pure sound without semantic content, meaning you get as close as possible to an experience of the will itself through an art.

>>10450534
No, that's pretty stupid. Read what Schopenhauer wrote first then come back.

>>10449776
Yeah, drama's the shit.

>>10450537
>pure sound without semantic content
not this meme again

>>10450519
It really is

>>10450548
It's not a meme, it's exactly what Schopenhauer's argument was.

>>10449718
instead of talking about what's "better" let's talk about how different it is. That's what Schopenhauer did. Whether we say drama or poetry is better or not, there's no doubt that music, universally, makes man feel different

>>10450485
The third party you mention is an historical sythesis which, without being deprived of quality, can hardly be described as objective.

What about dance?

>>10450556
>instead of talking about what's "better" let's talk about how different it is. That's what Schopenhauer did.
Schopenhauer pretty clearly and repeatedly said music was better.
>Music is as immediate an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is, indeed as the Ideas are, the multiplied phenomenon of which constitutes the world of individual things. Therefore music is by no means like the other arts, namely a copy of the Ideas, but a copy of the will itself, the objectivity of which are the Ideas. For this reason the effect of music is so very much more powerful and penetrating than is that of the other arts, for these others speak only of the shadow, but music of the essence.

>>10450555
I know.

>>10450521
Maybe, but you gotta remember they're ontologically encased in Apollonian form (not to mention literal form: the individual shots in the reel encasing illusions within illusions). This is why music is the best candidate for representing will: it's very presentation at least mimics something beyond outer sense (you could argue that it is still encased in inner sense, but good Kantian epistemologists like Schopey and N wouldn't worry about that now would they).

I'm glad >>10450532 mentioned Kurosawa. I could envision a defense of cinema on the same grounds as N defended Wagner (before he jumped ship), but I think that might only be tenable to epic films like seven samurai (or maybe the one about Macbeth, idk havent seen it). Maybe a case could be made for Fellini (though he strikes me as parallel to Euripides, particularly with 8 1/2). Definitely not Truffaut.

>>10450566
I stand corrected.

>>10450556
Does Schopenhaur gove an account of which is "better?" The only one I can imagine is the same dogma repeated in N about being seated in the will of the universe and all that. Need to revisit WWR soon.

>>10450565
>dance
Dance is less abstract than music because its medium is the appearance of a human body vs. the sound used to create music. A human body dancing will convey less abstract / more concrete messages that are way downstream from pure will. Just the fact it's a person you're looking at means you had to go from will, to appearances, to history and biology, to civilization and society, etc. to get to that particular instance of a person looking and acting in a bunch of not so abstract ways.
With music (excluding vocals with language), you just get will through sound.

>>10450589
How is concept art less abstract than music?

>>10450593
Concept art is a reproduction of ideas, not will.
>Music is as immediate an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is, indeed as the Ideas are, the multiplied phenomenon of which constitutes the world of individual things. Therefore music is by no means like the other arts, namely a copy of the Ideas, but a copy of the will itself, the objectivity of which are the Ideas. For this reason the effect of music is so very much more powerful and penetrating than is that of the other arts, for these others speak only of the shadow, but music of the essence.

Why is hearing more abstract than seeing?

>>10450569
Cinema is not the same as opera so I don't see why you should it be compared. In fact, many great films doesn't even have music in it.

>>10450561
I'm not fully clear on what you're saying

To what quality are you referring?

That would be poetry since any audio/visual medium is intrinsically wired to be preferred (i.e. it takes immediate effect), while poetry is pure abstraction.

Poetry is highest human achievement and math is our highest discovery.

>>10449997
This retard thinks, or at least implies, that more craft goes into what video game ost composers do than into the music of Friedrich Cerha. There's a reason no one besides one or two culties on this forum who shill him like this for years takes icycalm seriously.

>>10450601
Because humans are primarily visual creatures. It's easier to tune out and read a text than tuning out and listening, most people only close their eyes to sleep. Further, words have precise meanings, notes do not

>>10450505
I liked it before it was cool

>>10450597
I don't mind the special status people want to give to music but this is such a baseless argument, desu.

>Art is like subjective man, like everything can be art or some shit

It really isn't. You're also ignoring that beauty in art can absolutely be measured and there are countless examples in history (most notably the golden ratio)

>>10449718
Look into his eyes. What do you think?

>>10449718
No.
The artform hat has done the highest seems to be literature though.

>>10450350
Highest meaning most abstract and thus most accurately representing the pure will. If you're gonna post in a thread on Schopenhauer, at least read the cliff notes. Then you would know it's not about elitism and you could have spared us with that Rodney King "let's all get along" rambling

>>10450623
But sounds do have meaning, speaking, talking, sneezing, thunder, etc all mean something. So, since notes don't really have meaning like English words, would gibberish be as high a form of art as music?
>khxho{®^π©×•÷¢doydodu966'ododitdoyvuv cyofoyfou y6of9''oyfoufuo

Of course it is. Those who say it's literature and poetry have never read anything lmao half the greatest authors wrote about how music was the highest form of art.

>>10450650
jjoyceguitar.jpg

>>10450660
t. schopengoy
Read Hegel right mf'n now!!!~~~ Music is just low entertainment.

>>10450021
every art roastie's profile pic caption

>>10450670
kys

>With this example, I must not refer to those who use the images of the action in the scenes—the words and emotions of active people—in order with their help to come closer to the feeling of the music. For none of them speaks music as a mother tongue, and, for all that help, they proceed no further than the lobbies of
musical perception, without ever being able to touch its innermost shrine. Some of these who take this road, like Gervinus, don't even succeed in reaching the lobby. But I must turn only to those who have an immediate relationship with music and who find in it, as it were, their mother's womb, those who stand bound up with things almost exclusively through an unconscious musical relationship.

Nietzsche

>>10450646
You're right, I should have known better than to assume we could all get along, I'm so fucking stupid
degrade me more

>>10450670
holy shit that fucking comic oh fuck why

>>10450403
Rap should be excluded because it focuses on lyrics too much. For Rock it depends on time signatures; the more abtract it is the "higher". Jazz is like Classical and every Adorno fag is just a reactionary soyboy.

>>10450431
>Critics are still individuals, what standard do they have to measure against?
Other critics. Critics are educated people; you have to be educated yourself in order to identify them.

>>10450723
Wow you don't know what you're talking about. You probably never touched an instrument in your life too.

>>10450696
Don't lose hope, anon.

>>10450670
>>10450682
>>10450701

People will flock to this thread to talk music without ever listening to classical. If Bach isn't your number one composer, quit posting right now.

>>10449724
Neither were video games.

>>10449718
Yes.

>>10450296
Such a plebby post, I feel sorry for you.

>>10450306
Video games act as a scripted medium, like interactive theater. Traditional games lack that element and fall into a separate category because of it

>>10450499
>art exists in absolutes and can be analyzed and quantified using cold logic exclusively
>human emotions and changing times don’t count
Autism

>>10450601
>Why is hearing more abstract than seeing?
It's more a matter of sound used in music usually is not representational in the way images used in visual arts are.
You typically don't feel the way you do listening to music because the song is made out of reproductions of actual meaningful sounds you're familiar with e.g. the sound of your grandma cooking dinner or the sound of cars on the highway (it's certainly possible to make "music" like that, but more often than not this isn't what music is).
Instead, the sounds are inexplicably direct conduits of feeling despite the feelings not deriving from some real world referent. In contrast, even the most abstract art can still be very easily associated with real world events, and in fact that's what most people do when they look at visual art, they see colors and shapes and have thoughts about similarly shaped or colored things in the real world.
>>10450607
>That would be poetry since any audio/visual medium is intrinsically wired to be preferred (i.e. it takes immediate effect), while poetry is pure abstraction.
Are you posting from Bizarro 4chan?
Poetry is one of the least abstract arts there is, it contains words used as descriptions for events.
Also what "intrinsic wiring" are you talking about? Nobody can even rigorously define "music" any further than "organized sound," responses to music pretty clearly aren't just some automatic reflex or else there would be a lot more agreement in what music is.

>>10450637
The definition of beauty is inherently subjective. What makes the golden ratio objectively more beautiful than any other form besides consensus among a certain group of people?
Consider the spooks friendo

>>10450637
>most notably the golden ratio
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAA
You didn't open a single book on art theory in your life, didn't you?

>>10450787
If there's enough consensus it becomes evidence of an objective reason for consensus.
e.g. There is a lot of consensus that saltiness in food is enjoyable, and that's not just because lots of people all just coincidentally share in that subjective preference, it's a consequence of the objective reason of evolutionary history.

Was he right about Hegel

>>10450771
I wish I could write something in response but your post is unintelligible. You think that video games are higher art than games, is that it?

>>10450791
He's not wrong, golden ratio is easily the best known example of an objectively defined pattern found in lots of apparently subjective preferences for what counts as aesthetically pleasing.

>>10450808
>higher art
Oh geez he posted it again
The anon was being straightforward you’re just a brainlet

>>10450804
Ahh. Got it. Harry Potter is the greatest book series of all time.

>>10450769
Quality argument.

>>10450813
It means nothing though. What is aesthetic to us would conform to our limited senses, and art functions as an important tool of power. All it tells us is that common "aesthetics" would have to be within our sensory range, as well as appeal to some "ideal" that has some sort of social function, e.g. beautiful body would signify some social utility, etc.

>>10450816
The post is not straightforward at all, it's so poorly written I could only ask.

>>10450819
How did you get "consensus is the sole arbiter of greatness" from "if there's enough consensus it becomes evidence of an objective reason for consensus?"
Did you just accidentally read a different post or something?

>>10450771
Yeah, plebs think their interactions with art makes it categorically better. kek'd

>>10450827
Video games are now rather cinematic and use multiple mediums to convey meaning, ideas, etc. I don't reckon anything they do is strictly "video gamey" as music is obviously "music" with its one medium of sound through time. That's why I think video games are an intertextual mess that draws from multiple artforms, and can't really constitute as being an artform without recognising it as part of other artforms. Traditional games like chess are simply computational, and their physical representation of chess pieces don't exactly constitute an artform - although I appreciate the workmanship that would make an expensive jade set.

>>10450813
>
Just try constructing a coherent aesthetic theory with meme stuff like "golden ratio". "It looks nice to a lot of people" is not an argument about the objective quality of art.
The problem of objective quality is a massive one and it has been ongoing for literal millennia. Namedropping golden ratio and posting retarded wojaks proves absolutely nothing.

>>10450844
I don't fully agree with your descriptions of games but it does inform your views on art, which are inherently interesting to me. Thanks for the detailed answer.

>>10450844
You think they're an "intertextual mess" mostly because you don't play them often enough. If you did, you wouldn't be separating their elements into the various other artforms. We experience the sum of its parts when we play a video game and it is that sum that we judge and evaluate as the "video game" we are criticizing.

Music has an intoxicating aspect to it that other forms of art lack. It's more intensely experienced and alters one's mood.

>>10450650
No because gibberish doesn't have any aesthetic value. Abtract art in the other hand probably has will in-itself. An arrangement of colors that was deemed aesthetic isn't the representation or copy of anything in the world except itself. The reason why Schopenhaur excluded visual arts in his argument is because there were they always represented something concrete back in his days.

>>10450879
>gibberish doesn't have any aesthetic value
what

>>10450740
>implying the final result isn't the only thing that matters
keep caring about your masturbatory "technical" stuff while I enjoy raw will

tfw you know a guy who says he read Phenomology of Spirit in two days and says he doesn't need to re-read it because he understood most of it.

>>10450116
>t. L. Wittgenstein

>>10449718
yes

t. musician

>>10450883
Gibberish can't be beautiful unless represented in some form that would make it stand out, although that would turn it into a form of abstract art.

>>10450318
what a fucking stuck up, pseudointellectual, arrogant prick you are

>>10450890
huh? You're the one who said rock has value if it has weird time signature. Then you procede to call jazz and classical the same. You're the one who judges solely on complexity. Maybe try making sense next time, instead of saying the exact opposite of what you mean.

>>10450451
This is a legitimately quality post

>>10450747
take a (you) cause that looks like it took a while to make

>>10450451
This is what brainlet tell themselves. I don't mean to be offensive, but you really have had no contact with philosophy to make such claims. You have no insights into the nature of these mediums, so how could you claim that assigning equal value to each is meaningful? This is the basics of basics.. It's like saying music and growing potatoes share equal value. It's not wrong, it just does not make any sense.

>>10451038
Probably ten minutes... I've been making memes for a while.... got a page and everything. Sad, really....

>>10451042
So...this is what the sunk cost fallacy looks like when applied to study of an utterly useless school of thought. Woah.

>>10451053
>school of thought
Philosophy is a school of thought. Okay.

>>10450535
Thinking current pop music represents music in general is very... odd. Music suffers from conglomerates and the like just as much as literature(if not more, because pop music gets popular through constant exposure, in stores, malls, etc, something literature doesn't need to worry with as much)

>>10451042
>how could you claim that assigning equal value to each is meaningful?
Didn't say that, didn't even try to.

>It's like saying music and growing potatoes share equal value. It's not wrong, it just does not make any sense.
No potatoes, no music. No music, no point in growing potatoes.

There, that was real simple wasn't it? Point is that they both (and all) exist for a reason. The fact that people value them differently doesn't really matter, to society as a whole they're both important, and trying to structure how important they are in relation to each other a thoroughly useless endeavour.

>>10449718
highest in that it is the most subtle; id est, the least material

>>10449757
This reads like your standard music criticism nowadays: empty buzzwords and no substance.

>>10450696
You're indeed fucking stupid. Eat a dick then kill yourself.

>>10450723
Jazz isn't like classical, and most of its greatest achievements were done by white people with classical influences, such as Bill Evans. Coltrane, often invoked when discussing the merit of jazz, was a great player, no doubt about that, but his achievements are still juvenile in comparison to the greats of classical. Giant Steps, widely regarded as his genius apex, has an extremely simple structure, it's only hard because of the tempo. It doesn't come anywhere near what classical composers were doing even a century before. While jazz has its merits, don't dare compare it to immortals. If it wasn't for financiers most jazzers would have overdosed or quit due to bankruptcy as early as the 50s. Parker overdosed in a Rothschild property, and Pannonica, the owner, was sleeping with Monk. Jazz musicians aimed to play at the Rockefeller Center. Again, don't dare compare them to immortals. Next thing you know people will be saying John Green is a modern Goethe.
Sorry to burst your bubble
t. musician who studied and plays both

>>10452140
> If it wasn't for financiers most jazzers would have overdosed
How is that relevant to anything? Whether or not a musician was a drug addict is irrelevant, you can have great recordings and be a drug addict or have terrible recordings and be a teetotaler.
Also speaking of Charlie Parker his solos were pretty fucking great and musically complex, not "only hard because of the tempo" like you described Coltrane.
There's a reason everyone serious about playing jazz (on any instrument) owns an omnibook.
And no, nothing done in classical music already covered what Charlie Parker accomplished, the changes he navigated were about as far out there as it gets without getting into "weird for the sake of weird" avant garde music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOoZ6zo8HAQ

>>10450723
no jazz is garbage relative to classical, you’re a fucking brainlet whose never studied music beyond your own racial interests. they were musically illiterate performers riffing, nothing like the autistic genius of Beethoven or Vivaldi

>>10449718
Yes of course. Pythagoras was the first to recognize this. The reason is that it most non-arbitrarily represents motion through time. The highest form of art must have a temporal component and a physical component which exist in equal proportion to one another. This is exactly how music acts as a microcosm for the universe.

>>10450274
yes but plenty of mediocre filmmakers make use of good music to trick viewers into thinking the film is better than it is

>>10452342
>musically illiterate
Also irrelevant. He obviously knew on an intuitive level exactly what he was doing, there was no need for him to know the sheet music equivalent. If anything, it's more impressive and less artificial when someone intuits music to that extreme degree without consciously deriving it from music theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02apSoxB7B4

>>10450747
kek'd

>>10450744
where's the guy who listens to classical exclusively (me)?

>>10452359
film, theater, and games would satisfy those conditions too

>>10450537
>Auditory sensations are inherently inferior to visual sensations

I love this maymay

>>10452798
>games
playing murder simulator does indeed embody a microcosm of an aspect of this universe

>>10450318
your not a musician i can tell
music is good not based on the genre but on the production value and the message behind it
classical music only seems god tier to you because you imagine people listening to it in tophats and monocles while sipping tea and praising industry

>>10452359
On that note, video games are then the highest form, since they simulate the entire cosmos: the generative, destructive, cyclical, static, and dynamic nature of it.

Music can only invoke raw emotion and so is suited for brainlet women

>>10452359
Pure sophistry

Music and literature are both imitations of speech which is the true highest from of art.

>>10449718
No, anime is

>>10453136
please use punctuation
in YOUR writing
retard

>>10450497

>I can’t read subtitles

omg there is no highest form of art. if you guys wanna be jackasses about it, the highest form of art is your human life and what you do with it.

if you want to argue about which artistic medium is best, you're going to keep running into dead ends until you define the function of art, which, spoiler alert, you're never going to do successfully.

communication of aesthetic / emotion -- music
communication of aesthetic / idea -- literature
communication of aesthetic / story -- film

and of course there's bleed between those media. there is, imo, the most bleed into film. meaning of those three media, film imo is the best at replicating and / or incorporating the functions of the other two.

this is the most interesting thing in the thread:
>>10452359
>>10452798
>>10453159

compelling case for eliminating painting and sculpture, at least, as contenders for the highest form of art.

>>10453167
the ultimate goal of art is to achieve a state of will-lessness
not
>rly makes u think

>>10452365
Every anime ever

>>10452798
not abstract/wilful enuff

>>10452140
>Coltrane
>Giant Steps, widely regarded as his genius apex

>t. musician who studied and plays both

let me just doubt that last claim for a sec

>>10452313
Well it would sure make a difference if it ended after bebop. A lot of big names relied on outside help to keep playing, that's where my example of Monk sleeping with Pannonica and her financing Parker come in. Were it not for such "helpers", such figures wouls have self destructed sooner. Quite a blast to jazz as a whole. Also, the introduction of latin rhythms in the 60s allowed jazz to keep its head out of the water for a while. Guys like Jobim had A LOT of classical influence. His sound makes it clear how influenced he was by Debussy, Ravel, etc. As I stated before, I'm not trying to discredit players like Parker and Trane, but it's absurd wanting to compare them to classical composers. Parker himself owed a lot of his work with dissonance to Stravinsky, of whom he was a known fan.

>>10453892
On compositional terms, his most praised work is Giant Steps. A close second is A Love Supreme. He had it up until the likes of Bahia. The only ones who cared about his free jazz stuff were musicians themselves, and mostly because of his previous work, an audience similar to that of Ornette. And of course not much before joining Miles he was trying not to overdose.

>>10453304
>vidya murder theft simulator for niggers and spergs is art
>scupture and PAINTING are not high art
found the gen z/younger millenial. go get your T levels checked you maggot

>>10454639

didn't say sculpture and painting weren't high art, also didn't say video games were. i said that was the most interesting thing in the thread for the nature of its argument.

and even if i were outright agreeing with the argument, i wouldn't be saying that sculpture and painting weren't high art; i'd be saying they weren't the highest form of art.

nice try, though. comprehend what you read before you decide to be aggressive and racist for no reason.

Yes

>>10450403
This
People who think only classical music is art music are retards who don't understand the role of art with its context
If you think complexity and order are the things music should try to archive you are a retard who thinks music can be judged like the visual arts are judged. The biggests retards are who care about lyrics like anything but a companion to music.

>>10449724
>>10449728
neither of these are true

>>10454675
>raycist
i didn’t say anything about your pets anon

>i didn’t say the thing
then what’s the highest form of art? jazz and hip hop? or post modern performance art? photography?

>>10449718
No, this faggot hated opera because there are words and you have to pay attention to the plot. Very pleb opinion.

>>10454639
Hey, not all of us gen Z are that bad, you hurt my fee fees :(

>>10454675
>agressive and racist
mfw

>>10452563
A car crash I'd hope.

>>10454760

in my original post (>>10453304)i said i don't think there is a highest form of art. but if you're gonna back yourself into this corner, i'd make an argument for film--it does the best job of any of these media, imo, of fulfilling the function of its competing media.

really don't know why you latched onto this "gen z / millenial" thing and rolled right into treating my post like it was ridiculous. no one's attacking you. you don't have to be this way.

>>10454639
Why do you behave stupidly on purpose?

>>10452140
tl;dr - Jazz is a player genre but I'm too autistic to just say that. Also white is right.

>Next thing you know people will be saying John Green is a modern Goethe.
Yeah, Art Tatum is really the John Green of music.

>>10453603
>anime
>good music
Don't (you) me with shitty faux-jazz please.
>>10452365
Yeah, retarded viewers.

>>10453136
You're clearly not a musician. Non classical music is garbage in comparison. You clearly don't understand art at all.

>>10449724
film is absolutely not art

music is literally the universe itself speaking as everything is waves. truly the highest form of art there can ever be

>>10455019
>doesn't know that visual art is perceived via electromagnetic waves
fuck you

>>10455062
that's obvious since i said everything is waves/vibrations

however music is the purest form

>>10455019
Your mom's fat cunt isn't art, my farts are the universe itself speaking as everything is fart you pseud new age cretin.

>>10455089
great post fellow friend

>>10455092
Meant for >>10455019

>>10455117
meant for >>10455089

>>10450468
When you use Internet-mockery language like this (the worst offenders being "herp derp" and its ilk), you instantly lose all credibility. Please learn how to express yourself without recourse to stupid naughties shit.

>>10449776
fuck off nobby this is my thread

>>10450607
>>10450639
>>10450670
see >>10455170

>>10454827
>no one’s attacking you
>framing
>you don’t have to be this way
>psychologizing
>you a rayciss
>film is the highest form of art
ah its a normalfag

>>10449724
LMAO

>>10450330

>>10450856
>This meme pic of Grahnald Glompf will disprove millennia of painstakingly exact mathematic investigations into the quantification of beauty

Just stop man

>>10455239
post the most beautiful sculpture you’ve ever seen, i’ll wait

>>10453304
>omg there is no highest form of art. if you guys wanna be jackasses about it, the highest form of art is your human life and what you do with it

You probably thought that was a very profound insight

>the virgin abstract music
>the chad gesamtkunstwerk

>>10449718
That's what you could call an opinion, anon. A matter of taste.

>>10455252

the opposite, actually. that seems like the kind of conclusion these discussions end up at when people don't define limits at the outset, such as what art even is before trying to determine what its highest form is.

i don't what's up /lit/'s ass now, but every thread is filled with people who are aggressive, projecting, and wildly anti-discourse in general. do you just search threads looking for a way to insult and argue?

>>10455252

seriously astounded at the lack of reading comprehension on this board. the sentence you greentexted to support your claim that i thought "it was a very profound insight" literally starts with a clause calling those who would reach that insight jackasses.

sorry for the double post, but man you need to chill tf out, read, and learn how to have a proper discussion.

>>10455248

If music is so great because it's abstract, wouldn't noise be even more of an artform?

>>10454819
There are more people butthurt about classical than actual classical snobs. The same exhausted arguments about muh arrogance, muh tophats and monocles blablabla, while if there's anyone arrogant it is you for assuming anyone who listens to classical is a douche. And of course there's the modern jewel:
>only listen to classical? RAYCISSSS

Contrast that to how someone who only listens to rap(beyond the mainstream) is characterized as a sensible listener, open to subtleties most of us aren't. Someone who can appreciate the art of beats and what have you.
Hm, I wonder why there is such a double standard. Maybe it's because of "dead white men"? Rappers sure seem to enjoy all that tech created by dead white men.

>>10454850
When compared to Liszt or Wagner he is.

>>10455970
it's funny how your post tries to diffuse weird perceptions about people but only reinforces them. have you ever considered that you unintentionally reveal your awful being through your writing and opinions?

>>10455645
Damn I'd unironically hit that

>>10455982
>Liszt

>>10455993
It's funny how your post makes absolutely no argument yet tries to come off as superior because "you're an awful being!" And I'm the arrogant one. Seriously, if you can't maintain a basic dialogue you have to go back.

>>10456020
Not the guy but he might've been the most technically skilled pianist along with Rach

>>10455239
>millennia of painstakingly exact mathematic investigations into the quantification of beauty
Go get checked for schizophrenia. These "millennia" don't exist. The golden ratio is a meme for people who don't know shit about art. Start by reading Janson and Gombrich if you wish to educate yourself a bit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

>>10456030
why do i need an argument to respond to a post that's only talking about who is more deserving of attack

>>10455071
the virgin sound wave
>pathetically requires another medium for transmission
>crawls along at 343 m/s at sea level
>embarassingly short range, dissipates quickly

the chad electromagnetic wave
>literally travels fastest in a vacuum at 300000 km/s
>propagates across the universe for literally billions of years

it's clear who's superior anon