/lit/ - Literature

>>10654943
>I don't know why, I'm not a historian
further proof that Larkin was an uneducated hack.

>>10654943
>It seems to me undeniable that up to this century literature used language in the way we all use it

lol nowhere even near close to true

Larkin was right. Obviously he is going to get excoriated by pseuds who feel compelled to praise ever more esoteric and ridiculous things in their quest for status.

>>10654943
Pretty sure Wagner is harder for plebs to appreciate than Picasso.

>>10654943
At the root of it all is man's rejection of God and the passion for self-deification. That is, theologically speaking, pride. This disorder in practice manifests as a desire to "ascend above the stars". In human terms this is only possible by positioning oneself as "above" other human beings who are in fact equal in dignity. In God's terms there is of course a polar opposite paradox in the sense that blessed are the ones who deny themselves and are in the service of others. These two opposites are the historical split between the goats and the sheep. Those who follow their spiritual father's principles - either the devil's or God's.

>>10655074
The seeming "victory" of degenerate art is not at all surprising. The ability to buy and sell what we need to survive is handled through monetary transactions. Therefore the easiest way to achieve the "ascension" a prideful individual craves is to control the flow of money. In that case others might not be able to buy or sell unless they make a compromise to the liking of the one who is in possesion of money. That is, you might not be able to buy or sell unless you receive the mark of the beast. Therefore in majority the art that has material backing to come into public consciousness is precisely the one the one that has either compromised or even worse and i suspect this has mostly been the case in the last 100 years - it does not require a compromise because it is perfectly aligned with the self-deification of the artist and it is prideful in its very essence. Taken to the extreme, it is not anymore that for example pop artists make a compromise to get their work out to the masses. It is now that the majority even takes pleasure in spreading pride and other disorders to the public. And of course by this initiating the public into their own iniquity through hooks imbued in art which are intended to stimulate the lowest of passions. Once those passions are completely ignited the result is not only a consumer who has become a follower of your own brand of iniquity but also a consumer who will make the project even a financial success as he will gladly exchange money to satisfy cravings that were actually incited in the first place by the very thing he is now supporting. The 20th and 21st century is only distinct in the sense that what was once hidden is now in the open since the masses have been "illuminated" into enjoying iniquity and even celebrate their own degeneration of spirit. This becomes instantly obvious as soon as one takes a look at most highly acclaimed modern pieces of art or any pop song. The former will without as much as a hint of irony proclaim a piece of crap in a can as a big accomplishment. While turning on your radio to any channel one will instantly be bombarded by sexual moaning, lyrics with no meaning beyond key words like love (which has completely desensitized people to what the term actually means) and catchy music that cannot rest or go without change for more than 7 seconds in order to keep your attention to it and in turn destroy your attention-span for anything that isnt instantly gratifying. Tomorrow the devil could be presented in his whole ugliness and1 feb do 7 feb ryanair treviso-paris 20eur povratna malice and most of humanity would bow down to him.

>>10655045

He is right, isn't he? It reminds me of an isolated comment by Bourdieu about art not really existing as an autonomous domain of existence before the 19th century. Of course there was "art" but there was no art for art's sake in the modernist sense.

>>10655074
>self-deification
>implying gods are anything more than the projections of man

>>10654943

Larkin said that the two principal themes of modernism were mystification and outrage. Sounds about right.

>The terms and the arguments vary with the >circumstances, but basically the message is : >Don't trust your eyes, or ears, or >understanding. They'll tell you this is ridiculous, >or ugly, or meaningless. Don't believe them. >You've got to work at this after all, you don't >expect to understand anything as important as >art straight off, do you? I mean, this is pretty >complex stuff: if you want to know how >complex, I'm giving a course of ninety-six l>ectures at the local college, starting next >week, and you'd be more than welcome. The >whole thing's on the rates, you won't have to >pay. After all, think what asses people have >made of themselves in the past by not >understanding art: you don't want to be like >that, do you? Keep the suckers spending.

>>10655151
This but unironically

>>10655203
>two principal themes of modernism were mystification and outrage
was there not mystification and outrage in greek plays, in the bible, in shakespeare, in don quioxte?

>>10654943
>what anyone with normal vision sees

>>10655264

>>10655257

No, I would not say that Greek drama, the Bible, Shakespeare, or Don Quixote set about to deliberately mystify or outrage the reader.

>>10655094
>He is right, isn't he?
NO

>>10655280
then you have either neither read nor understand, though your simpleton views I suppose align quite nicely with those of the simpleton you are quoting. We suppose he may be generally pointing to something, a trend, but not absolutely, there are still plenty of fine artists making art, there is still more realism than ever.

>>10655280
>two principal themes of modernism were mystification and outrage
>set about to deliberately mystify or outrage the reader.
Did those works contain, as themes, mystification and outrage?

>>10655338
>more realism than ever.
surely no realism that contains mystification or outrage however, for those are not real things

>>10654943
Further proof that Larkin is a milquetoast hack

The parables of Christ in the Gospels are greater mystifications than anything the modernists were able come up with.

>>10654943
>>It seems to me undeniable that up to this century literature used language in the way we all use it,
He sure does speak biblically and shakespearian...oh...is he talking about the literature that is not considered the best of all time? Oh, ok, lets care about that

ok, the only reason this bothers me at all >0 and it bothers me about 0.000000001% is what is he doing or saying really.... "dat ting ova dar is a cwircle, and dat id a sqware.."...

What is his point, what is he getting at, besides making an obvious observation...it seems undeniable to me...it absolutely shouldnt not... lots and lots of realism lots and lots of realism (not without its forays over the millennia), ..is there anything other than realism we can explore with language, thought, feeling, ideas, words, for entertainment, insight, beauty, contemplation, excersise, inspiring awe...mystification... outrage...happiness.. fun, playfulness, seriousness, exploration..

.

>>10655521
Shakespeare and the KJV are in the natural dialect of their age.

>>10656804
show me some writings from the common folks (the way we all use it) of those times

>>10655521
>>10656804
They are, and its a testament to the brain power of the average Elizabethan. This really hit me when reading John Donne's sermons, they would have lasted for HOURS, were full of complex and illusive language, and the average person was able to concentrate for several hours.

>>10655264
That's nothing like what people like Duchamp and Picasso did. There's still the attempt to present things realistically ie without fantastical phisicality or abstract representation

>>10656847
So Shakespeare and John Donne are evidence, examples of the average person?

>>10656860
Shut up brainlet

>>10656879
>my knowledge of art history is so diminute and my visual literacy so poor I can't see the difference between Bosch and things like the deliberate simultaneity of Cubism
>"shut up Brainlet"

How surreal

>>10656903
Shut up retard

>>10656860
what about baroque and rococo stuff with lines and shapes complex patterns and intricate abstract details?

>>10656914
Give me some examples

>>10656942
http://www.google.com/search?q=baroque+design&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwielMbg7JTZAhUK2FMKHRXxCGMQ_AUIBQ

kinda abstract art

>>10656942
or oriental rugs for examples, or buddhist mandalas

>up to this century
no historian indeed

art and music over shot their goals and turned the dial too far to the right.

music (traditional) was generally improving up until around 1930 when it just straight nosedived into a big pile of shit and pretentious masturbation up until right about now when it's just coming out of what will probably come to be called a dark ages of music.

people who unironicly enjoy completely disjointed and lousy music that has "muh patterns and structure" do not deserve to listen to music, as they have apparently already chosen not to by their own free will.

>>10655151
Jung is far from Feuerbach.

>>10658232
Thanks for hurting my feelings, asshole.

>>10656847
Elizabethan times were the golden age for English letters. As if Shakespeare were not enough, try reading the metaphysical poets.

>>10656860
>ie without fantastical phisicality or abstract representation

You're a fucking idiot. There's people living in a tree man's ass in Brechts painting

>>10656860
>ie without fantastical phisicality or abstract representation

>>10660392
b-but we wuz realism n-n' shit

>>10655264
EXACTLY what i thought

>>10654943
>You have to distinguish between things that seemed odd when they were new but are now quite familiar, such as Ibsen and Wagner, and things that seemed crazy when they were new and seem crazy now, like Finnegans Wake and Picasso.

Poetry is news that stays news, Phil.

>>10660391
>>10660392
Both of these still stick to comply to the rules of physicality and perspective, that is, even though they dwell in fantastical entities, they still attempt to present a realistic representation

Compare it to pic related, a figure descending a staircase

>>10658232
Funnily enough I think 20th century music is the greatest argument for racial and cultural mixing. All the innovative genres that would come to shape modern music - blues, early rock, jazz and later on hip-hop - were developed in this potent mix of colonial black and western influences that was America.
If you think this is all garbage somehow, well I simply disagree. I think jazz by itself has surpassed all the achievements of classical music.

>>10660698
>I think jazz by itself has surpassed all the achievements of classical music.

>>10660735
I'm sorry but it's true. Mostly black musicians in the 20th century took the best parts of western music and created something far superior.

>>10660651
>Both of these still stick to comply to the rules of physicality and perspective

Wrong

>>10660651
Dude stop embarrassing yourself

>>10660873
You don't even know what that means
You can represent thing that don't actually exist (dragons, fairies, whatever) in a realistic way by preserving real-world physicality and perspective. The cubist approach throws that out the window

>>10660883
That's just patterns with a human head as adornment. It's not figurative art; it's not meant to be representational

You guys should read at least a single book on aesthetics before coming into threads like this one

>>10660698
>Louis Armstrong > Bach

>>10661143
but Bach is jazz

>>10660924
You've been constantly moving the goalposts the entire thread. First it was about non-realistic art, then it was non-abstract art, now its about non-realistic representational art.

Just admit Larkin and yourself by extension are idiots talking shit

>>10661188
You're the one comparing embroidery with figurative art lmfao

>>10661160
If Bach is Jazz then there’s literally no benefit to race maxing as argued
Besides of course creating an army of la creatura...

>>10661201
The Book of Kells is not a work of embroidery my man

>>10661208
but without jazz, we would never have known what Bach was.