/lit/ - Literature

Why are you such a faggot, OP?

>>11214990
>muh degeneracy
the world will move on without you

>>11214990
What if she brapped and all the cups popped off her but at once and shattered on the ground?

>degenerate

>>11214990
Boomer detected

>>11214990
These previous anons need to be purged. You are right for seeing it so OP, and we are in a constant spiral downward.

>tfw pay freelance sculpture with 40 years of experience $500 for 100 hours of work
The degeneration of art has been the best thing, artists are now affordable.

>>11215044
Surely everyone who posts here is less than 30 max?

>>11215062
pics of what you got sculpted

>>11215014
Your ‘art’ won’t move the earth

>>11215092
>implying art is only used for a force of change

holy ideology

Cultural marxism and the postmodern left have enabled women to follow her natural instincts decadent and self-destructive sexual life that makes her fall and be inseminated by violent, vulgar men instead of nice guys who would love her and treat her respectfully in a monogamous relationship. So, when her offspring grows up he/she is resentful and poorly educated, easy pray for the art world which has been compromised by political agendas and a complete lack of skill or technique that allows anyone to literally pick garbage, put it on a pedestal and call it art. Female promiscuity is leading Western Civilization to its collapse.

>>11214990
*sees one shitty feminist performance*
>wow art is sooo bad im so triggered what happened guys we once lived in a society..

>>11214990

Imagine a Venn Diagram, OP, describing the intersection of three sets:

- Obscene, unsustainable material plenitude resulting from a combination of fossil fuel and the ruthless effectiveness of past generations

- Spiritual insolvency resulting from the collapse of the Christian faith

- Cultural poisoning resulting from the determined efforts of alien infiltrators (no, not just those, several other groups as well)

>>11215098
Nice comprehension reddit spacey, that you immediately assumed I was referring to ideology speaks volumes

>>11215099
>Cultural marxism
Stopped reading here.

>>11215099
nice satire dubs

Why is everyone being a faggot. Provide one genuine refutation to OP's claim or you are forever a faggot. Do not reply to this comment with insincere wack faggotry unless you plan on killing yourself immediately after.

>>11215145
What claim? Define degeneracy without devolving into /pol/ level of incel autism.

>>11215145
It isn't
QED
now lick my balls

>>11214990
money laundering in the art world + the rise of new money leading to a generation of dilettante kids with no transmitted values who desperately hope that the cow shit they produce makes them "cultured"

>>11215147
degeneracy is anything that leads away from truth

>>11215163
What is truth?

>>11214990

>>>Art

It's time to appreciate entertainment > art

>>11215163
Your post watered my kektus, thanks

>>11215165
cont.
And then explain why a woman listening to some soil leads away from it.

>>11215145
OPs claim is retarded, some modern art being degenerate does not mean that all modern art is degenerate. Here, take some non-degenerate ancient art to go with my post.

>>11215165
any system that's sufficiently coherent.

>>11215173
because it's meaningless. And has the given social status of "art". How is that not self obvious.

It's the artistic equivalent of your parents (society) feeding you grass and saying it's what's for dinner.

>>11215185
You're just moving the goalposts, define coherent? Why should truth require any kind of system or structure?

>>11215147
Not OP but what's wrong with the de facto response of "the lack of aesthetic standards"?

>>11215195
>meaningless
Nobody is this autistic...

>>11215014
Will it though? Sexually permissive non-monogamous societies tend to be subsumed by more ordered societies because they do a better job of promoting social stability.

>>11215180
Can you give an example of non-degenerate modern art?

>>11214990
>people think /lit/ is for any topic they think is for smart people
>only ever talk about these topics in a dumb way

>>11215204
You've fucked up, you should've said "contemporary art".

Art reflects the social, cultural, economic, psychological and political conditions of the time.

Since the modern world has largely been free of existential concerns (such as plague, famines, or massive wars) for some time now, people naturally begin to feel comfortable enough to express their deeper emotions and compulsions.

Guess what - humanity is a bunch of goddamn freaks. Every single person alive is a swirling mess of neuroses, impulses, biases, desires, fears, shames, and so on (even if they're not consciously aware of it.) When people inevitably start presenting themselves so openly for the world to see, it is inevitably going to full of weird, strange, disgusting, provocative and twisted shit.

This is not a sign of "degeneracy," any more than going to a fancy restaurant is a sign of degeneracy. It is simply a representation of the human subconscious that, in times of time, is either pushed to the wayside or actively ignored.

>>11215228
actively surprised**

My bad

>>11215129
>reddit spacey
Oh boy I already know the type you are. How many smug anime pictures do you have saved?

>>11215200
bullshit paragraphs pulled out of the artists ass don't count as meaning. Modern art only has "meaning" in terms of denigrating the meaning of something else. That's not meaning since proper meaning can only be constructive not destructive.

>>11214990
Cameras.

>>11215204
How new does it have to be? Non-Violence is one of the most iconic sculptures produced this side of the renaissance desu.

>>11215228
>going to a fancy restaurant is a sign of degeneracy.
That is a sign of degeneracy in that being upper middle class is in itself degenerate in todays materialist world. These neurosis you speak of should be actively fought and overcome, not given status as meaningful.

>>11215099
>instead of nice guys
Fucking DROPPED

>>11215165
pic related is (Artistic) truth. IE correct form. There is no honor in being purposefully wrong unless you were to build your own system that is equally truthful (coherent)

>>11214990
I went to the Melbourne art gallery a few months ago and it was full of nice looking, skillfully created shit.
It also had a room full of bent chairs and every exhibit had some really dumb, shallow message about open borders or multiculturalism but its unfair to tar it all with the same brush.

posting actual art

>nobody defended a concrete "degenerate" modern art piece or posted a "non-degenerate one"
really makes you think

>>11214990
>>>/ic/

>>11215274
going off of this, most old art goes well together since they follow the same truth. Modern art clashes because it is wrong in random directions. INB4 muh subjective beauty

>>11215076
why?

>>11215014
>move on without you
by all means do

Art is overrated, all it does is generate semantics and pointless debates over something so abstract and stupid.

>>11215147
Faggotry.

>>11215156
Mega faggotry, please kill yourself

>>11215180
Faggotry

Not one genuine refutation. Sad, really. I thought this was the smart board.

>>11215284
Kek

>>11214990
me on the bottom left desu

>>11215307
Has a piece of art ever genuinely moved human civilization forward? Serious question.

>>11215309
Why would I spend time trying to refute a vague claim made in some random shitpost? Write up a more coherent post and maybe someone will try.

>>11215309
ya got me, you turbo queer

if you can't grasp all the art, beauty and meaningfullness in this video, you need to be castrated asap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvMwCvbHHUY

>>11215317
by proxy, it can influence the public opinion like pic related or inspire thinkers/writers which in turn can inspire and influence groups of people and change society.

Do you mean modern art or contemporary art? There's a big difference.

I admittedly know very little about art history, but these are my uneducated brainlet ramblings:

When people complain about modern art, they're usually referring to postmodern conceptual art. In the 20th century, a new school of artists emerged who challenged the status quo, creating outrageous pieces that raised the question of exactly what the definition of art is. Famous examples are Duchamp's urinal and Manzoni's shit in a can; works that derived their merit not from aesthetics, but from making a statement with a complete disregard for aesthetic value. I assume they intended to stir up conversation in the art world, and they succeeded.

The problem is that, it seems to me, this rebellion against the status quo has not just overstayed its welcome; it has actually become the new status quo to some extent. Some art elitists scoff at painters or sculptors who have a more traditional approach, and praise works that don't, but what they fail to realize is that they're setting up the same sort of elitist standards that the things they're praising originally rebelled against. A crucial difference, however, is that these new standards cannot survive on their own, since they are inherently contrarian and derive most of their value from opposing the very traditions they've been deconstructing.

This is not to say that there isn't room for conceptual art that derives its merit primarily from making some kind of statement, but when the statement that's being made is no longer revolutionary and there's no real aesthetic value, then all we're left with is a non-verbal form of yelling. Conceptual works that once would have been considered shocking are now often just embarassing and unpleasant. e.g. paintings made with period blood.

Interesting as such conceptual works can be, I think they often miss the point. Even a non-verbal statement is still essentially verbal if it has the explicit intention of starting a conversation: it ultimately derives its value from what's being said about it. What's unique about art is that it can have merit while being entirely non-verbal, i.e. we don't need to talk about it or even understand what it really means on a conscious level in order to appreciate it. This is IMO what's lacking in too much "modern art" and we need to bring it back.

For the record, I don't think it's objectionable that such a rebellion took place—perhaps it was even inevitable—but once it was established that even canned feces can indeed be considered art, where do we go from there? Surely there's a limit to how far you can push that sort of work, and that limit can't be far removed from presenting human excrement as artistic expression. In my estimation, it's the antithesis part of a dialectic and we're now in the process of forming a satisfactory synthesis.

>>11215147
>Define degeneracy without devolving into /pol/ level of incel autism.
Vox making a video defending polygamy

>>11215343
this kinda tickles my dinkle, was that the point of the performance?

>>11215180
>modern art isnt more degenerate than ancient art because its equivalent of priap garden gnomes representing god of fertility
this is what liberals believe

>>11215204
Degenerate is such an old word, are you old?

Bill Viola's one, he even has christian bullshit happening

>>11214990
It took me forever to realize this, but art reflects the conditions under which it is made. Artists have not changed their methods/approaches/whatever you want to call it generally speaking (sure, you might be able to point out the historical nuances that are inevitable with any sort of "progress" in a discipline, but bonafide psychological aesthetic paradigm shifts have been far and few in between). Rather, it is the world that has degenerated. Ever worthwhile aesthetician has noticed this. Nietzsche, Benjamin (who perhaps most aptly puts it for our time), BaudrillardCAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL,etc.

it's all explained here
http://culture.vg/features/art-theory/on-the-genealogy-of-art-games.html

>>11215408
*every
lol its too early for me to engage in worthwhile discourse

>>11215408
>Benjamin
Who?

>>11215417
Author of The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.

>>11215420
That essay is scary prophetic. DeLillo's variation on it via White Noise is just the first glimpse of what comes next

>>11215344
Doesn't this fall under journalism?

Great art seems to require a culture based on a beautiful transcendental lie. We traded a lie for nothing at all, so all that is really left for the artist to do is rearrange matter as part of a global money laundering system.

>>11214990
They’re interpreting the work of Warhol, Pollock, Duchamp, etc. as “expression for its own sake.” They think that anything is artistic if shown in a museum or whatever. In fact, many of those “classical” modern artists were not saying that anything can be art, but instead something more like “these fuckers are gonna take this shit seriously no matter what I put.” The real art piece is the audience crowded around staring at a painting of Campbell’s Soup Cans. Clearly, contemporary modern artists did not get the joke.

wtf... why waas medeval art so deghenrate

>>11215320
Why waste your time replying at all?

There's a lot of modern art that is good. You just need to look.

>>11215248
>cartoon gun
>non-degenerate

>>11215404
yeah I'm old

>video installations
>art

>>11215180
The claim that modern art is degenerate can not be proven by showing degenerate ancient art.

>>11215481
God I wish that were me

Scrutonite genocide when?

>>11215488
Several pertinent questions:
What is degenerate?
How do we gauge the level of "degeneracy" in art?
There are many formally conventional works with "non-degenerate" subject matter being produced. Do we gauage contemporary art's degeneracy by:
1. What gets funded?
2. For what price it gets bought?
3. How much "degenerate" art is produced?
4. How much is consumed?
5. How much critics laud it?
6. How much the public lauds it?

>>11215431
They kinda were a work of journalism, but they grew to be very iconic, and the messages behind them were strong and striking enough to be classified as art. But I can somewhat understand if you disagree.
>>11215481
I love Caravaggio's paintings.

>>11215497
>Several pertinent questions:
All of these are irrelevant to my critique of your questionable proof method.

Honestly I don't know if modern art is "degenerate", or what that even means, not do I really care.

My personal definition of degeneracy is "what social conservatives / traditionalists dislike", which I think most closely represents how that word is being used today.

>>11215203
name one time that's ever happened faggot

>>11215515
Oh, my mistake, since the post you were replying to isn't mine, and I assumed you were OP, hence directing my questions toward you.

>>11215284
And no one should care to, certainly not for the sake of proving wrong a mongoloid who watched a PragerU video and now thinks he's an expert w/r/t contemporary art.

>>11215537
you cared enough to respond, and I'm not OP

>>11215526
Islam, Ancient Rome, most eastern cultures that devolved into warrior societies

>>11215374
Hell of a lot of polygamists would disagree with you.

Daily reminder that people who complain about the degeneration of art have never read a book on aesthetics, art history or art criticism. Daily reminder that people who complain about art degeneracy are about on the same intellectual level of pop music listeners who complain about classical music being "too long", i.e. children throwing a tantrum over something that they don't immediately understand because they can't immediately understand it. Daily reminder that people that invoke "beauty" are praising the immediate reaction as superior to the learned aesthetic understanding: if they had their way the art that they deem "beautiful" could never have been made. Daily reminder that they often conflate the terms "beauty", "Aesthetic", and "sublime". Daily reminder that these people think that photorealism is a good thing.
Daily reminder that in spite of all the talk of "correct aesthetic standards" they have never touched a book written by a formalist art critic, nor do they know that formalism is an actual thing. Daily reminder that the "muh degenerate" crowd ignores all the sociocultural situations under which all the different currents of modern art have been born: they ask the artist and the viewer to be purposefully ignorant of history and historically deaf, despite the fact that the art that they champion as standard of aesthetic beauty has never been historically deaf (i.e. the renaissance, romanticism). Daily reminder that these people have probably never been to Rome, Venice or Paris. Daily reminder that these people often complain about eroticism being present in art despite the fact that eroticism has been present in art since the Greeks (since prehistoric times, to be more precise).
Daily reminder that if these people had their way we would never have had all the Van Goghs, all the Otto Dixs, the Renoirs, the Modiglianis, the Picassos, the Kandinskys, the Matisses, the Monets, the Cezannes, the Klimts and (since we're on a literature board) the Joyces, the Rimbauds, the Eliots of the world: these artists that we correctly understand as being geniuses would have been classified as "degenerate" and thrown into a trash bin. Daily reminder that the most representative spokesman of this crowd of resentful minus habens is someone who thinks Metallica is good music. And, last but not least, daily reminder that there are even today a ton of artists who reject the avant-garde of the last century in order to paint in a more traditional or realistic way (there is, in fact, a whole website dedicated to this kind of stuff: artrenewal.com) but the "muh degeneration" crowd doesn't know about them because they don't actually care about art.

>>11215685
people who complain about the degeneration of art want pillars and classical sculptures and architecture all over cities and towns, and michaelangelo (and all the ancient masters) level artistry to fill the world and tv. Mainly it may be 'goofy' ironic/nonironic childish, embaressing sculptures in cities or towns instead of classically beautiful, virtuously inspiring works, and same for architecture. Hokey, dopey, smarmy, cartoony, tacky, gaudy. They want the world to be paved of marble and gold and full of beautiful busts; Only. A single manwoman crawling on the floor shitting their pants to be placed on a canvas and screaming as a performance piece ruins the work of art that is the world as a whole.

>>11215228
Modern are is a money laundering scheme. The only people who enjoy it are indoctrinated to do so. If you chucked 90% of modern art installations in a dumpster someone walking by wouldn't even glance at it. If you threw a Rembrandt in a dumpster the first person to walk by would fish it out.

>>11215711
They want the world to be homogenous basically?

>>11215600
Polygamy ain't conducive to stability bruh

>for profit schools start accepting untalented, vulgar riffraff for that delicious student loan money because profits before integrity
>retards got told to go to college but not what to major in. thinking all majors equally profitable they picked the fun one
>have no talent and don't want to grind fundies to git gud, only way to get attention is to be edgy
>eventually typical edginess is no longer enough, have to compete against legions of other hacks all running the same trick
>degeneracy turns into an arms race to the bottom
>certain (((financial elites))) use modern "art" as a tax dodging scheme so there is endless money backing this circus
>use media control to convince the brainless masses that liking modern art makes you sophisticated
>sheep, wanting to seem cultured and intellectual, jump on board and try to beat the others to who can praise mustard stains on canvas the most
>the entire machine is completed and becomes self propelling

>>11215732
What is? Monogamy?

Two packs of gum and a bottle of pop please ma'am.

>>11214990
>degenerate
virgin

>>11215727
they believe something closer to objective quality and value exists than not: and that while actions and expressions of art may not be literal shit, (though the example I gave contains), it can be qualified accurately as symbolically shit, and a subsection of the example I gave, metaphorically equaling the example. Should the art nazis storm every home and shred every childs finger paintings hung on the fridge? Well maybe they will say, just make sure its adult equivalents dont leave the fridge.

Its about the clutter of apparent shit filling the world, instead of the apparent heights of human achievement.

Mainly they are mad their daughters and sisters are sluts who only listen to hiphop whos greatest source of art consumption is the music videos.

>>11215744
Men don't have to compete as assiduously for mating opportunities in monogamous societies as they do in polygamous societies, so there are fewer instances of violent competition for status.

>>11215755
If being a virgin is bad, then virgin rage is legitimate.

>>11215145
Because your "degenerate art" is demystified, and readily available by people who know how to market on the internet and NOT in real life. These people are generally the scum of the art community because 'le epic shit in a can' is fucking stupid and everyone knows it. there is literally nothing groundbraking or exciting about "socially challenging" performance art some art hoe. These people are pitied by almost every other artist I know myself. They have literally no merit in the art scene. SO, they use the internet.
The internet has not exposed shit art on a massive scale, art as a whole has always had these "artworks" which are total crap. Like I said, the only reason you see them is because they are marketed, making them seem more prevalent with appearance and frequency illusion. With the ability to fund artists from anywhere in the world these people get ease of access to funds at the bare minimum to survive. If they were any good then their name would stick around, and so far, none of them have because they're all trending, shocking or whatever, but offer no aesthetic-value which genuine and sincere artists actually do receive. If you would believe it!
People who I call 'genuine artists', probably in line with your 'non degenerates', but I think 'degenerate art' is a term for people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and who have no connection to their own culture, and are immersed only in a global, on line, world. Which simply isn't the truth.
The reason why these artists don't explode on the Internet is for two reasons, one for the former reason I stated: shock value, trendy ect. they don't give a shit, they want aesthetic-value and a reputation which follows it. The other reason is they don't need some bait taking idealog dip shit to market them or fund them, why? Well, take a walk outside of your house and go to a fucking art galley and actually experience your culture. Artists nowadays make a fucking fortune in the right networks, most of the time, you connect to these networks at uni or college. They by no means do they need to market them selves to petty shock value or ideologically motivated dick heads on the internet. Commissions from some private cunts wallet who fund genuine artists are a the reason why you see "degenerate artists" prevalent online. Fuck off with you "muh decline bullshit," and get out of your basement.
t. An artist who is pretty well off

>>11215774
So long as we call it what it is. I can't be alone is assuming that everyone who unironically uses the word "degenerate" is an incel?

>>11215764
so the shit doesn't sink?

>>11215784
I wouldn't say everyone. People who are angry at the current state of our sexual mores could just be angry that they can't live the same monogamous lives that their grandparents and great-grandparents did. You don't have to be a virgin to be upset about that.

>>11215711
This is true, but also a good proof of what I was talking about when I referred how these people seem to be completely historically deaf: their reaction to someone like a Munch or a Picasso who were reacting against epochal changes in the Zeitgeist of their time is nothing more than a tantrum, like a child who stomps his feet on the ground when there's something he can't understand. "Plz Mr Edward, maek art beauty". Furthermore, that view is irreconcilable with the fact (and it is a fact) that all Michelangelo-level geniuses choose the avantgarde (more or less). They are infact asking the artist to tone down his estrus because they think artists should serve THEM.

>>11214990
It's not. Art must progress . Many artists are classically trained. We must always persevere to find new ways to express our authentic selves. AESTHETIC MOVEMENT BEGONE!

>>11215802
They can, quite easily. They appear to be angry at the fact that people are allowed to disagree with them.

>>11215812
choose the avantgarde in the XX century*

>>11215813
They literally can't.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-claim

We live in a culture where monogamy is either being pushed further back to one's 30s, our being outright fought against. And in any non-monogamous system a sort of differentiation appears where fewer men have sex with a larger percentage of women.

>>11215830
>>11215812
Also, I think that it's quite telling how these discussion always degenerate into a shitflinging contest about sexual mores.

>>11215685
based

>>11215812
>think artists should serve THEM.
Well in the examples such as public sculptures, shouldnt they? Or public architecture in a city/town, should the people be able to rally against a bloody shit covered penis shaped building/sculpture being put up in their neighborhood?

Paintings are one thing, theres usually 1 or so copy, and they go in a museum/gallery/home.

>>11214990
Art moved away from the institutions a century ago in alignment with the death of God in society.

The masses are pigs who love to play in their own mud and shit: anyone who complains about 'modern art' is too close to the pig pen or is empathetic with the source of sausage and bacon.

>>11215884
I don't know why you keep equating the totality of modern art with feminists shitting on things, the question is larger than how you frame it. Take something like "Forme uniche nella continuità dello spazio": It is clearly not "classic" art, it's infact born as a reaction against "classic" art. It isn't harmonious nor mimetic, yet do you think it could be classified in the same category of feminists who shit on a canvas? This is what I'm talking about: if you want to rally against feminists pissing on things do it, I'm on your side, and to be fair 99,99% of art critics are as well, (even critics like Argan who are so comprehensive in their art historiographies as to include something as lowbrow as 8bit digital art purposefully ignore them), but to frame this question as "classic" (aka good) art vs modern (aka bad) art is just simplistic and stupid.

>>11215913
>anyone who complains about 'modern art' is too close to the pig pen or is empathetic with the source of sausage and bacon.

The Conspiracy of Art by Baudrillard, 1/3

>>11215939
2/3

>>11215946
3/3

Modern art is worthless.

The world of many norms and certain standards is oppressive and grating, common, encompassing, banal, boring, tediously, similarly same, same old same old again again again again... 'weird modern art' is a carved out refuge in the unconventional, a coldwarm burrowed hole into the fabric of the darkness of night, while the commons are sleeping. Grass and lawns and farms and people are boring and grotesque, nature is repetitive and lame, and standards and historical classical culture is overbearing and obnoxiously loud and irritating, demanding, everywhere in your face. 'weird modern art' is a cavern party of transcendent escapists with beyond human tastes, perspectives from beyond eternity, a hyperreal persecond eternal mainframe mindstate. Escaping the declarations of what being a human is, means, and must enjoy as content and decoration, and rates and standard of perception and taste.

>modern
That’s contemporary.

>>11215954
>Modern art is worthless.
what art is not, and why?

>>11215954
*Contemporary

>>11215782
>artist who is pretty well off
Show us your non degenerate works then faggot.

>>11215968
>nature is repetitive and lame
look at how many insects there are, and how abstract and 'modern' their aesthetics and metaphorisics are

>>11215996
The classic tenants of art appear to be beauty, divine pleasure, and inspiration to live exceedingly well, to reflect the positive aspects of the potentials of the infinite of creative nature

>>11215685
Please explain and analyse the aesthetic value of a modern art piece that would be classed as degenerate by the people on here but you know, due to your vast learning and astute perception, to actually be profound.

>>11215782
what type of art do you make?

>>11214990
Imagine being an angry oldman square in your early twenties, LMAO

>>11216085
imagine a 2 story shitcovered blood covered rainbow painted thicc black cock sculpture erected in your town square... of course you wouldnt care, but should your opinion be the only one to matter?

>>11216016
>look at how many insects there are
look at how many insects are pests and killable

>>11216093
You seem to spend a lot of time thinking about black dick

>>11215968
So you think this Bouguereau is loud and irritating? Can anyone honestly say they actually prefer some hog shitting on herself to this absolute masterpiece?

>>11216228
>You seem to
you seem to have not answered. What do you qualify as a lot of time, a few posts that are good symbolic examples in a discussion, that you avoid by making this little twerpy aside? What would modern art have against erecting such a sculpture in a town hall? Would you be against this?

>>11216247
I said classical culture, not 1 single example of a painting, but the totality of people involved and their attitudes and aesthetics and mannerisms and beliefs and powers and glances and glares and desires

>>11216247
This is real art. This one also shows the proper family structure. Art should show the ideal, not the fee fees of a neurotic tranny

You don't know what "modern art" is and just parrot the opinion of similarly uninformed brainlets. In fact, I'd say bitching about modern art is the ultimate brainlet filter.

>>11216267
jesus christ use more words faggot.

And do you realize that this so called "free" and groundbreaking contemporary movement is creating the exact attitudes that is was created in reaction to?

>>11216272
>that ass
>ideal

>>11216272
>Aryan woman
>with a darky
>ideal

>>11216303
>>Aryan woman

>>11216287
See this post and try to say something against it, as I corrected your previous attempt at a point, I am not going to rewrite this wheel, try again:
>>11215968

>>11215550
Religion is what destroyed both Ancient Rome (Christianity) and Islamic countries though

>>11216272
>>11216247
>Bouguereau
Finally someone pulled out the classy nekcbeard's perennial favourite. Of course that shit is loud and irritating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27art_pompier

>>11216307
you know what I meant pedantic pal, banal boy, minutia man, literal lad

>>11215099
>leading Western Civilization to its collapse
HOLY SHIT I couldn't read anymore after that

>>11216311
I read your post. You are saying that traditional art (real art) has been overdone and has become repetitive. You also claim that the attitude surrounding it is too mean. So you think the shit people make today is anywhere near the quality and meaningfulness of classical art like I posted, when in reality is just a empty pit of sexual impulses, neuroses, and random lines and colors. There is no structure, which reflects the degenerate state of society.

>>11215685

>>11216247
>absolute masterpiece
Look at the torsion of her ankle lmao. Colour wise it's very good, but if you consider that a masterpiece you have some serious eye training to do. Here's an actual masterpiece. And also a relevant passage by Kandinsky.
>Every work of art is the child of its age and, in many cases, the mother of our emotions. It follows that each period of culture produces an art of its own which can never be repeated. Efforts to revive the art-principles of the past will at best produce an art that is still-born. It is impossible for us to live and feel, as did the ancient Greeks. In the same way those who strive to follow the Greek methods in sculpture achieve only a similarity of form, the work remaining soulless for all time. Such imitation is mere aping. Externally the monkey completely resembles a human being; he will sit holding a book in front of his nose, and turn over the pages with a thoughtful aspect, but his actions have for him no real meaning.
The funny thing is that he then goes on and complains about his contemporaries.
>There is, however, in art another kind of external similarity which is founded on a fundamental truth. When there is a similarity of inner tendency in the whole moral and spiritual atmosphere, a similarity of ideals, at first closely pursued but later lost to sight, a similarity in the inner feeling of any one period to that of another, the logical result will be a revival of the external forms which served to express those inner feelings in an earlier age. An example of this today is our sympathy, our spiritual relationship, with the Primitives. Like ourselves, these artists sought to express in their work only internal truths, renouncing in consequence all consideration of external form.
>This all-important spark of inner life today is at present only a spark. Our minds, which are even now only just awakening after years of materialism, are infected with the despair of unbelief, of lack of purpose and ideal. The nightmare of materialism, which has turned the life of the universe into an evil, useless game, is not yet past; it holds the awakening soul still in its grip. Only a feeble light glimmers like a tiny star in a vast gulf of darkness. This feeble light is but a presentiment, and the soul, when it sees it, trembles in doubt whether the light is not a dream, and the gulf of darkness reality. This doubt, and the still harsh tyranny of the materialistic philosophy, divide our soul sharply from that of the Primitives. Our soul rings cracked when we seek to play upon it, as does a costly vase, long buried in the earth, which is found to have a flaw when it is dug up once more. For this reason, the Primitive phase, through which we are now passing, with its temporary similarity of form, can only be of
short duration.

>>11216272
>a regular family is ideal
lol what

>>11216359
pretty much, allowing the ugly to be presented to the public
>muh ugly is subjective

>>11215550
>ancient rome fell to ordered societies
oh look a retard

>>11216272
>>11216247
>absolute masterpiece

looks like absolute kitsch to me

>>11216260
Why do you constantly conflate modern and contemporary?

>>11216373
Here's an actual spiritual painting.
Cont
>These two possible resemblances between the art formsof today and those of the past will be at once recognized as diametrically opposed to one another. The first, being purely external, has no future. The second, being internal, contains the seed of the future within itself. After the period of materialist effort, which held the soul in check until it was shaken off as evil, the soul is emerging, purged by trials and sufferings. Shapeless emotions such as fear, joy, grief, etc., which belonged to
this time of effort, will no longer greatly attract the artist. He will endeavour to awake subtler emotions, as yet unnamed. Living himself a complicated and comparatively subtle life, his work will give to those observers capable of feeling them lofty emotions beyond
the reach of words. The observer of today, however, is seldom capable of
feeling such emotions. He seeks in a work of art a mere imitation of nature which can serve some definite purpose (for example a portrait in the ordinary sense) or a presentment of nature according to a certain convention ("impressionist" painting), or some inner feeling expressed in terms of natural form (as we sa —a picture with Stimmung) [6] All those varieties of picture, when they are really art, fulfil their purpose and feed the spirit. Though this applies to the first case, it applies more strongly to the third, where the spectator does feel a corresponding thrill in himself. Such harmony or even contrast of emotion cannot be superficial or worthless; indeed the Stimmung of a picture can deepen and purify that of the spectator. Such works of art at least preserve the soul from coarseness; they "key it up," so to speak, to a certain height, as a tuning-key the strings of a musical instrument. But purification, and extension in duration and size of this sympathy of soul, remain one sided, and the possibilities of the influence of art are not exerted to their utmost.