/lit/ - Literature

>>11301225
don't

I. Don't. Like. Conservatives.
>>11301234
This

>>11301244
>>>/reddit/

fuck off underageb&

>>11301244
This is why Donald Trump won.

>>11301244
>>11301244

go back to w here you c ame from

>>11301225
legit retard. also his name is scruton. read something else.

>>11301225
you'd be hard pressed to find someone in academic philosophy who takes loger crouton seriously. that being said, why do you want to read him? there's so much philosophy out there, and so little time. why use your time reading him?

>>11301264
And he hasn't done a thing about it.
Trump Trusts Traps.

>>11301225
I enjoyed both "beauty a very short introduction" and "on human nature"

>>11301561
>you'd be hard pressed to find someone in academic philosophy who takes loger crouton seriously.
Can't think of a better endorsement tbqh

>>11301595
i'm don't want to argue about the pitfalls of academia with you, but you should be wary of anti-intellectualism in writers like crouton. he's part of a wave of pseudo-intellectuals whose fan-base is composed of non-experts and ledditers. he's popular because he reiterates unambitious white boy's laziest convictions: that whites are naturally superior, homosexuality is a egocentric perversion, and generally that the status quo is the best possible world, threatened only by non-whites and non-males. sure, he's an excellent rhetorician and a very lucid writer. but his arguments fail both logically and factually. it's careless, violent, and completely uninspiring.
again, you shouldn't read scruton if only because there's so much else you could read.

>>11301595
also, i'd like to note that his conservatism isn't necessarily the reason i think he's bad. he's bad because he doesn't think very hard. there are numerous "conservative" writers that would be a better use of your time: heidegger, goethe, borges etc

>>11301666
>"why would anyone waste their time reading Scruton when there are better philosophers out there?"
>"by the way, i'm certain that my views on him aren't caricatures despite never having actually read him"
You can't possibly form a coherent picture of Scruton view's without having read him first, and that's exactly what you're asking OP to do.

>>11301666
Fuck off satan

>>11301595
A far superior modern aesthetics theorist is this guy, starting with this book:

http://culture.vg/features/art-theory/on-the-genealogy-of-art-games.html

Forget about Scruton and read that.

>>11301718
I almost believed you for a second

>>11301709
i did read him. it sucked.

>>11301666
He's knighted and taught at Oxford. You make him out to be some fringe right wing extremist.

>>11301724
So you're chastising OP for wanting to do what you yourself already did?

>>11301723
I almost took your low tier bait.

>>11301739
i was 19 and retarded when i read scruton. i'm telling him that he's a waste of time.

>>11301728
i'm telling it like it is my man. i'm not saying you should read scruton, but if you do, you'll find that he is indeed a right wing extremist.

>>11301763
>>11301771
I think you might be ideologically possessed, homeboy. Scruton is a mild-mannered good boy who's slightly right to the actual center

>>11301728
>>11301771
What's wrong with right wing extremism? That's a breath of fresh air in the jungle of libtarded "academics" shitting all over art history in all ways possible with their Freudian analyses and other bullshit that we've had for the past several decades.

>>11301666
> that whites are naturally superior,
By almost every reasonable metric, this is true.
>homosexuality is a egocentric perversion
Why wouldn't it be? Mortal sin is mortal sin, regardless of sexual preferences.
>generally that the status quo is the best possible world
The status quo is terrible and the modern world was a mistake.
>threatened only by non-whites and non-males.
Well yes, there is a looming demographic crisis that will topple the welfare states we've carefully crafted over the past hundred years, and enfranchising women enabled that to happen.
>he's an excellent rhetorician and a very lucid writer. but his arguments fail both logically and factually.
At the risk of discovering that you think anything that is conservative or reactionary is "illogical" because you're a pathological leftist... what are some GOOD alternatives to the line of thinking espoused by Roger Scruton?

>>11301782
>ideologically possessed
fuck off peterfag
just because kids learn about other genders in school doesn't mean we're two steps from the gulag

>>11301782
scruton is a naive idealist, even if he doesn't act as such.
>>11301784
again with the anti-intellectualism. have you ever read an academic paper? if universities are failing, it's not because of some cabal of nefarious freudians.

>>11301801
water on the brain. go back to pol

>>11301801
>Why wouldn't it be?
Because it isn't.

>>11301806
>other genders
Gender is a spectrum with two poles. Made up gender pronouns are a legitimate concept to argue against

>>11301807
>if universities are failing, it's not because of some cabal of nefarious freudians.
I didn't say they were. There's an abundance of those "nefarious Freudians" in aesthetics theory now, though. Calling someone an extreme right winger isn't exactly a refutation of their aesthetic theory.

>>11301813
>trying to deny reality this hard
Not an argument.

>>11301813
wrong map, here's a better one
>>11301818
>sex outside of procreation is bad... except for gays, they can poz each other's negholes to their heart's desires
Sorry sweaty, but you don't get special privileges from rules that apply to everybody.

>>11301829
>sex outside of procreation is bad.
good thing I've never argued such a thing

>>11301839
Another dishonest leftist trying to avoid the point. Nobody has a problem with homosexuals having homosexual desires. But acting on them is different.

>>11301820
Uhhhhh how about no.
Look gender is a social construct, the idea that one set of actions are "girly" and another are "boyish" is totally wrong. Ugh, like so wrong. Just because a bunch of people set standards hundreds of years ago doesn't mean they're concrete, and just because some people don't follow these standards doesn't mean they're wrong or confused.

>>11301813
>>11301818
>>11301839
Notice that I asked for better alternatives to Scruton, and none of these faggots were able to provide any. Really makes you think that their entire point was motivated by ideological resentment instead of concern for the truth...

>>11301841
m8 you seem to be a bit slow in the head. I never said that sex outside of procreation is bad, that's you.

>>11301850
see >>11301686

>>11301850
Fuck them, but listen to me nigga >>11301718

His general theory is that achieving higher immersion is what the history of art is about. His life's work has been to prove that theory again and again with criticism and philosophy. You aren't going to find a more cutting edge aesthetics theory written about anywhere else, not in Scruton either. If your goal is to read top of the line aesthetics in this day and age, that is the place you need to start.

>>11301871
fuck off Alex

>>11301862
You're such a dishonest fucking faggot. Talking to thickheaded morons like you is like listening to nails scratched against chalkboard.

To not be "prejudiced" against homosexuality requires you to endorse sex outside of procreation, since that is the only form of sexuality that comes naturally to homosexuality. How is that anything but a perversion?

>>11301874
Fuck off, strawman retard.

>>11301843
I said that gender is a spectrum with two poles. By the way, the only way for gender to be performative is if a particular set of actions can be defined as feminine and a particular set of actions can be defined as masculine. If no performative actions can ever be classified as masculine or feminine, then there's no basis for any gender, let alone the over 50 genders on facebook.

>>11301871
>shilling video games as art
What kind of manchild Gamergater shit are you selling me?

>>11301876
It's easy: sex outside of procreation is not a perversion
Incredible, I know.

Anyway, that's besides the point, which is Scruton's own conception of homosexuality.

>>11301850
also, in terms of more contemporary "conservative," dennett and rawls aren't bad. they write about different topics, but generally can be called conservative.
it also seems like a lot of the frustration people have with contemporary philosophy is that a lot of it is difficult to read, which is a fair complaint. i sometimes recommend graham harman, because he's a decent philosopher and writes clearly

>>11301890
>It's easy: sex outside of procreation is not a perversion
t. degenerate leftist

>>11301876
why do nazis get so angry about everything? chill out, get over yourself, and navigate yourself out of pol.

>>11301883
Why don't you read it and find out? He's been writing LONG before Gamergate has even been a thing. No one part of Gamergate has any clue. If you want to read a piece that establishes his authority on the subject, read this:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

His range is extremely broad. He writes philosophy as well.

>>11301892
>dennett, rawls
>conservative
Nigger, how much of the leftist koolaid have you drunk to believe that John Rawls and Daniel Dennett are "conservative"? Are you one of those types who uses the word "liberal" as a derisive term for anybody who isn't a card-carrying communist?

See, this is the problem with I have with leftists. Most of them rarely talk to people outside of their academic circles, and they end up having an extremely distorted sense of the world and the people who live in them.

>>11301902
I'm not a Nazi. I don't support Hitler, I think the Nazi Party was filled with evil tyrants, and the think Nazi Germany was a huge mistake. But I guess anybody with a moral compass is a "Nazi" to leftists nowadays, so go figure.

>>11301896
That's not an argument I'm afraid, deontology and consequentialism are two different things.
At this point it's clear you're looking for a reason to post your infographics so I'm just gonna stop arguing with you.
Remember to confess after Mass, anger towards your fellow men is a sin.

>>11301896
This is the result of material conditions, mainly birth control and online dating, not changes in values.

>>11301905
liberals are card carriers. i'm your run of the mill leftist, i guess further left than internet liberals. rawls and dennett are conservative, further left than goebbels or whoever you read.

>>11301905
brother you are the one with an extremely distorted sense of the world. your anger and alienation is a product of it.

>>11301910
that's fair. how do you identify yourself politically?

>>11301923
>rawls is conservative
Literally what am I reading

>>11301941
my bad. i was thinking of leo strauss.

>>11301911
>That's not an argument I'm afraid, deontology and consequentialism are two different things.
Translation: I'm going to bring out jargon from ethics that have no relevance to the topic at hand as an obfuscation tactic. I have no real objections to provide.

>At this point it's clear you're looking for a reason to post your infographics so I'm just gonna stop arguing with you.
Translation: you're going to start posting substantial and decisive evidence for your arguments, so I'm going to exit before you have the chance to knock out my belief system once and for all.

>Remember to confess after Mass, anger towards your fellow men is a sin.
Translation: I have no real understanding of religion, and I do not practice it myself, but I will use it as a tool to bludgeon you with as one last ditch attempt to avoid confronting your arguments.

Leftists are some of the most disgusting creatures to walk the planet.

>>11301913
The changes in action go hand-in-hand with changes in values. You'd have to be sophist to argue against this.

>>11301923
>I am so delusional that if you consider Rawls to NOT be a conservative, then you must be an advocate for Goebbels
Is this the power of leftist echochambers?

>>11301931
>haha, no, it is YOU who has a distorted sense of the world for not thinking that the champion of social liberalism ISN'T A CONSERVATIVE
For fuck's sake dude. No reasonable person would agree with you. Get some fresh air, will you?

>>11301937
I don't really know at this point. I'm all over the place. I used to be a leftist until I entered university and encountered sophist, virtue-signaling fucks like the people you're seeing in this thread. As much as I like reactionary thought nowadays, I still find myself skeptical (but not hateful towards) capitalism, and I still have fond feelings towards the early American republic. There's not really a coherent ideology that can capture the essence of EVERYTHING that is wrong with the human condition. But I've been finding that religion has been a good start so far.

>>11301728
>>11301595
>the academia is a cesspool of degenerate leftists, it should be disregarded/opposed
>except when someone I agree with is an academic
Like clockwork

>>11301970
>my bad. i was thinking of leo strauss.
Well god damn it man, those are two polar opposites on the ideological spectrum! You have to understand how incensed I was after you insisted that I was the crazy one for pointing that out.

Yes. Leo Strauss is conservative, and I hold a high respect for his beliefs, even though I don't agree with everything he has to say.

>>11301977
I wasn't the person who said that academics are all bad

>>11301973
>Consequentialism and deontology are "jargon"
>Ethics has no relevance to ethics
Please leave the board and never return you fucking subhuman

>>11301871
>His general theory is that achieving higher immersion is what the history of art is about
This is so fucking retarded, holy shit. Has this faggot even heard of formalist theory? "Immersion" my ass, it's an excuse for his hedonist vidya playing and denial of the real world.

>>11302001
>WAAAAAH YOU DIDN'T TAKE MY BAIT
You brought up jargon into a conversation that wasn't using them and wasn't exploring their related ideas in any meaningful way. As far as I know, neither of us made a consequentialist or a deontological argument for either of our positions. If we had to venture into that territory, however, it would be clear that by both standards, promiscuity is immoral and degenerate.

Go back to leftypol you utter manchild. Your sophistry has no place here.

>>11302012
He makes solid points throughout the book to support the idea.

>it's an excuse for his hedonist vidya playing and denial of the real world.
Everyone is pushing their own worldview onto others when they write.

>>11302033
>defends analyzing a child's pastime as art

>>11302035
>child's pastime
Go to bed, pops.

>>11302045
>don't make me grow up!!!

>>11302033
>He makes solid points throughout the book to support the idea.
Does he ever try to refute formalist theory or Brecht? Because their conception of art is diametrically opposed to his and they're pretty important figures in the history of aesthetics, to put it mildly.

>>11302017
You made a deontological argument, "non procreative sex is immoral", then you used consequentialistic/utilitarian reason when you posted that pic (it leads to this!!!!!!!!!). The two are two different paradigms.
You are now using obfuscatory tactics even further, conflating non procreative sex with promiscuity.
>If we had to venture into that territory, however, it would be clear that by both standards, promiscuity is immoral and degenerate.
If you're completely ignorant of the relevant literature, sure. But then again I'm arguing with someone who posts /pol/ memes.

>>11302048
lol. Try reading something of his. He shits on the people in that graphic of yours regularly.

>>11302060
I don't remember if he mentions Brecht, but of course he provides arguments against other theories.

>>11302062
>You made a deontological argument, "non procreative sex is immoral"
I made no such claim that it was innately deontological instead of consequential. If it was based off of the fact that it reduced "utils", then it would be immoral by consequentialist definitions.

>you used consequentialistic/utilitarian reason when you posted that pic (it leads to this!!!!!!!!!)
Maybe you should have used your thinking cap to come to the conclusion that, just maybe, my original point was consequentialist in nature!

Isn't it funny how your biggest "gotcha" was actually a failure of reading comprehension and lack of charitability on your part?

>conflating non procreative sex with promiscuity
What is the opposite of promiscuity? Chasteness. You cannot have promiscuity without non-procreative sex, which is not only on the rise, but also being pushed as something that can be done in unlimited numbers without consequence.

>I'm arguing with someone who posts /pol/ memes.
I never knew that posting statistics and religious quotations is a fucking meme.

>>11302065
He's a self-hating bugman. Who cares? Tell him to grow the fuck up.

>>11302012
im not going to comment on the merits of anyone's aesthetic theory because i am not informed enough, but you cant seriously make a comment like "hedonist vidya playing and denial of the real world" here. as if lurking and posting on 4chan is a brutal confrontation with reality?

>>11302090
>a self-hating bugman
He's an Athenian Greek who surfs and snowboards among doing other physical activities. He has nothing to do with your little caricatures.

>>11302121
>and he plays video games
Dropped.

>>11302090
>I made no such claim that it was innately deontological
>Sex outside of procreation is a perverdion
>a perversion
Ok retard
>Isn't it funny how your biggest "gotcha" was actually a failure of reading comprehension and lack of charitability on your part?
Isn't it funny how this whole discussion spawned from the fact that I was attacking Scruton's conception of homosexuality and you misread that at me trying to make amendments towards gays in particular? Very funny indeed.
>You cannot have promiscuity without non-procreative sex
The two are not the same, brainlet. You can have nonprocreative sex with the same person your whole life. Or is your paranoia so strong that you believe sterile married couples don't exist? Fucking retarted moron.
>I never knew that posting statistics and religious quotations is a fucking meme.
I never knew that cartoonish representations of your political opponents are "statistics".

>>11302128
You call him a manchild yet you're the one with the juvenile hangup over a recreational pastime that also happens to be constituted by a massive global multi-billion dollar industry filled with thousands of artists, for what appears to be no sensible reason at all besides "video games are for kids" which makes no sense at all historically.

>>11302076
I'm asking about formalism
A quick ctrl+f yields no mention of formalism or formalist theorists. I only came across this gem:
>the process begins with the Impressionists and goes something like this
>—"Here's my painting, Mr. Critic. What do you make of it?"
>—"A painting? But that's barely more than a rough sketch! Absolutely terrible!"
>—"Ummmm, but, you see, I wasn't trying to make something that looked good, I was just trying to create an impression."
>—"Oh, in that case magnificent, A+, keep up the good work!"
Completely ignoring how impressionism was shat on and rejected by the critics (the very name of the movement was originally a pejorative). Then he uses the word "subhuman" in the context of Nietzsche and "artfag".
Look, I'm not retarded enough to take this shit seriously.

>>11302102
We're talking about art, not 4chan

>>11302147
>Ok retard
I would argue that anything that leads to the net harm of society is a perversion of the natural order, i.e., what would define any quantitative utility anyway. But I imagine you're not the type to squander an opportunity to make a pointless semantic objection.

>Isn't it funny how this whole discussion spawned from the fact that I was attacking Scruton
Yes. Because it was clear that your entire problem with Scruton was the fact that he wasn't a raging standard-bearer for progressive thought.
>The two are not the same, brainlet. You can have nonprocreative sex with the same person your whole life. Or is your paranoia so strong that you believe sterile married couples don't exist?
You really think that society is encouraging monogamist relationships when they push for non-procreative sex? You are totally clueless. Get out of your basement.
>I never knew that cartoonish representations of your political opponents are "statistics".
With you, the only thing I did was post 1) racial IQ statistics; 2) anti-promiscuity statistics; and 3) anti-promiscuity religious excerpts. None of these were "cartoonish representations" of my political opponents. I'm still waiting on the logical/empirical refutations, which are probably never going to be made. You are such a delusional hack, it's not even worth arguing with you. And you STILL haven't provided any reasonable alternatives.

I hereby declare you, BTFO. Don't @ me again, faggot.

>>11302160
What do you know about formalism and video games? Because he is the only guy who has a formal theory on them, so dropping him means knowing nothing about this.

>Completely ignoring how
He wasn't ignoring anything, he was trying to make a different point. Be a stuck up and unread twat just because you don't like someone's writing style if you want.

>>11302151
>juvenile hangup over a recreational pastime
A recreational pastime... for children.

Don't get your diapers all twisted up. Society made you this way.

>>11302204
>for children
What makes games explicitly for children? Don't men go to casinos or play cards or chess together? Don't men enjoy sports games together and haven't they made HUNDREDS of different types of games out there that they enjoy playing, many of them having several varieties based on cultural differences? Why is game playing at all something childish to you? Society didn't make me this way, society made YOU this way. You are a babbling idiot with no clue about history and manhood whatsoever.

>>11302227
>Don't men go to casinos or play cards or chess together
Gambling is a foolish vice. Chess is a highbrow pastime for high IQ men. Sports requires athleticism. Video games are consumerist trash meant to keep you hooked by providing dopamine hits while the rest of your body and well-being wastes away.
> Why is videogame playing at all something childish to you?
Because I'm a grown ass man. Grow up.
>no clue about history and manhood
Lol, I guarantee you that, without the massive timesink of video games, I am far more acquainted with both than you will ever be.

>>11302192
>formalism and video games
Formalism as described by russian theorists applies to every art form. This faggot treats vidya as art and discusses other art forms as well but ignores their works. Pretty dumb to ignore the foundation of modern art theory that clearly articulated a view of art opposed to his. He doesn't seem to be in dialogue with anyone in general.
>For if a urinal can "be art", why not also that crock of shit in my back yard? Or the one coming out of my ass right now as I sit in my toilet with my laptop and type this? This kind of question eventually becomes inescapable, and finally the subhumans are called, not only to play critic in order to JUSTIFY their rubbish, but to play also the philosopher by PROVIDING A DEFINITION of art which will also encompass all of their rubbish. And thus the random justification-producing process begins anew, this time at an even higher level, and naturally enough with even more imbecilic, utterly farcical results: "ART IS WHAT HAS MEANING" (as if every object in the universe did not possess meaning for at least some of the creatures contained in it), "ART IS WHAT HAS A MESSAGE" (as if messages depended on the object which "contains" them instead of on the subject which regards it, in which case everything has a message, and in fact an infinity of them), "ART IS SOMETHING SUBJECTIVE" (and therefore, according to subhuman logic, impossible to evaluate, or even to agree on criteria on which to base an evaluation, or even to so much as discuss), "ART IS WHAT HAS AN EMOTIONAL IMPACT" (as if interaction with any kind of object whatever did not have an "emotional impact" of some kind), "ART IS SOMETHING USELESS" (as if any living creature would ever bother with anything that it deemed as truly useless), "ART IS... ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW WHAT, FUCK IT, WE WON'T BOTHER WITH A DEFINITION BECAUSE DEFINITIONS, AND SEMANTICS IN GENERAL, ARE SILLY" (which amounts to saying that "everything I am saying is silly, including what I just said"), and so on and so forth, until they finally simply give up and resort
This is literally the I AM SILLY webcomic. He even uses caps in the strawmen.

>you don't like someone's writing style
It's not the writing style. He's distorting the facts. "the process begins with the Impressionists", he writes, and then makes up the reaction of the critics and makes everyone in his narrative into a retard.
>Be a stuck up and unread twat
Oh, dear, I won't take seriously a guy who uses terms "subhuman", "artfag" and caps lock, I'm so stuck up and dumb.

>>11302244
Just stfu and read this. Then maybe be less of a moron and get a clue about how things work.

>>11302284
>this is an excuse to play degenerate games and be a consumerist slave trying to justify his vices with "muh artistic expression" bullshit
No thank you. I think I'll stick with chess and football.

>>11302190
>I would argue that anything that leads to the net harm of society is a perversion of the natural order, i.e., what would define any quantitative utility anyway. But I imagine you're not the type to squander an opportunity to make a pointless semantic objection.
Irrelevant. You're trying to move the goalposts because you've been completely BTFO. No one cares about your retarded moral theories you mental midget.
>You really think that society is encouraging monogamist relationships when they push for non-procreative sex? You are totally clueless. Get out of your basement
Irrelevant. Again trying to move the goalposts because you've completely BTFO.
>Yes. Because it was clear that your entire problem with Scruton was the fact that he wasn't a raging standard-bearer for progressive thought.
Irrelevant, strawman, victim rhetoric. You're such a manbaby it's not even funny.
>With you, the only thing I did was post 1) racial IQ statistics; 2) anti-promiscuity statistics; and 3) anti-promiscuity religious excerpts.
Dumb, blind, what else? (>>11301973)
>I'm still waiting on the logical/empirical refutations
I'm still waiting for you to say something that makes sense.
>I hereby declare you, BTFO. Don't @ me again, faggot.
lmao, I tip my hat to you good sir. "I hereby declare you", lmao.

I'm not going to respond you anymore, you aren't worth the air you're making me waste.

>>11302298
>more angry tantrums
>not even trying to present a coherent argument now
lol you've definitely been BTFO. I've never seen a leftist crash and burn this hard before. Props!

>>11301841
where is this image from?

>>11301902
>durr everyone right of trotsky is a nazi lol

>>11302268
>and discusses other art forms as well but ignores their works.
No he doesn't. He talks about works in other art forms. Other art forms aren't his specialty like video games though, so he's not going to talk about them nearly as much. But what's your point?

>Pretty dumb to ignore the foundation of modern art theory that clearly articulated a view of art opposed to his.
He doesn't though. You clearly didn't read the book in full. I'm not sure what your point is here either; are you saying he can't assert a different theory of his own?

>He's distorting the facts.
And what "facts" do you think he's distorting? Why is his narrative less believable than the one you obviously believe without question? He at least provides a shit-ton of thought experiments in his work to try and convey how he has come to formulate the narrative that he perceives to be the historical case.

>>11302290
Why is chess fine but a 4X game isn't?

>>11302515
>He talks about works in other art forms.
I meant to say that he's discussing various art forms and ignoring formalism.
>But what's your point?
He's discussing art theory without any meaningful dialogue with the preceding theories. I want to see him refute actual formalist theory (caps lock strawmen don't count as theory), as I'd similarly expect a philosophically serious atheist to be able to refute at least some previous works of theology that argue for God's existence.
>He doesn't though.
So quote me his refutation of formalism.
>You clearly didn't read the book in full
I never claimed I did.
>are you saying he can't assert a different theory of his own?
He can, but he should be able to say why the other ones are wrong too.
>And what "facts" do you think he's distorting?
The fact that impressionism was received very negatively by the critics and needed a lot of time to be affirmed academically. Like, open a fucking book on the history of art. You can't recreate history in your thought experiments you fucking brainlet. I'm going to start claiming that Hitler escaped to Argentina with my thought experiments too, why the fuck not?

>>11302588
>So quote me his refutation of formalism.
First of all, he is not against formalism in general, so this isn't necessary at all. Like I said before, he has founded his own formal theory on video games, precisely because one didn't exist before. In his language and for the context of video games, "form" is genre and "style" is theme. In the context of video games (but not in the context of all other art forms, which he DOES distinguish between, because video games are interactive and other forms like movies aren't), these are separate, and he goes much more into what distinguishes and defines them and how they interact with one another in his other book, Videogame Culture, and also in his reviews on individual games. So yeah, not against formalism, he has done plenty of formalizing the aesthetic experience in video games. For some reason, you had the early impression that he was against "formalism," since his theory puts immersion to the forefront (which he explains throughout his work how that fits in, even into other formalist theories), but I think you had a certain formalist theory in mind, so which one was it that you thought he stood against?

>>11302588
>>11302672
A good way to introduce you to his idea of genre vs. theme, and how he defines what makes a genre in video games, see his review on the game Flower.

Quick footage of the game (jump to like 1 minute in):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUC2tpY5gb4

The review:
http://insomnia.ac/reviews/playstation3/flower/

>Flower is, believe it or not, a flight simulator. — "WHAT! BUT IT'S ABOUT FLOWERS ZOMG!!!1" — Shut the fuck up, fagot, and listen to me carefully. In videogames, genres have nothing to do with colors or textures, but with mechanics. A flight simulator, therefore, does not necessarily have to have "aeroplanes" in it — it is simply a game THAT SIMULATES FLIGHT. More precisely, in mechanical terms: A FIRST-PERSON ACTION GAME IN WHICH THE PLAYER'S AVATAR CAN MOVE, MORE OR LESS FREELY, IN ALL THREE AXES. In other words a game like Flower.

Genre is basically a combination of rule sets and mechanics. Of course, it's not that basic and he extrapolates on that a lot throughout his writings.

>>11302672
>First of all, he is not against formalism in general
Yet you said that he thinks that immersion is what art is striving towards. But formalism (I'm mainly aiming at Shklovsky's "Art as Technique" here) and Brecht (Verfremdungseffekt) say that the disruption of immersion is the key element of art.

The rest of your post and >>11302715 is unrelated to my point. He's still distorting historical facts, making starwmen, and being an idiot.
>>Flower is, believe it or not, a flight simulator. — "WHAT! BUT IT'S ABOUT FLOWERS ZOMG!!!1" — Shut the fuck up, fagot, and listen to me carefully
4chan greentexts are stylistically superior to this shit. He calls his readers faggots and treats them as mouth-breathing idiots. I'm neither of those things so I rather wouldn't read his texts, thank you very much.

>>11302755
>the disruption of immersion is the key element of art.
Why didn't you say that in the first place? But his refutation against this is his aesthetic theory itself, since it asserts the opposite premise, and if you want to know what that is and how he demonstrates its validity in the world, you have to read the work. You can't expect me to do all of the work for you. It's not even possible to quote all the text here necessary to demonstrate what his aesthetic theory fully entails. But you won't read it though for the asinine reason that he hasn't written a polemic against those two and their aesthetics specifically, right? (And I could be wrong, and maybe he has somewhere and I can't recall or I missed it.)

Also, his writing style is off-putting to you because you are an alien to the art form which he is deeply experienced with. By this alone I know for a fact which of the two of you knows what he's talking about more. Ideas aren't timeless.

>>11302795
>Why didn't you say that in the first place?
see >>11302060
>Does he ever try to refute formalist theory or Brecht?

>you have to read the work
As I said, I'm neither a faggot nor retarded, so I'm clearly not his intended audience. Instead, maybe you should read the works of theoreticians other than an internet schizo, so that you don't come off as an utter idiot who doesn't know the principal ideas of formalism and Brecht's theater while trying to discuss the nature of art.

>polemic against those two and their aesthetics specifically
The foundation of modern aesthetic theory isn't something "specific", it's an elephant in the room.

>his writing style is off-putting to you because you are an alien to the art form which he is deeply experienced with
I've been playing computer games since I know of myself. I'm not alien to them, I'm alien to being called a faggot and talked down to like I'm an idiot. Maybe you feel fine when treated like that, but not everyone has so little self-respect.

>>11302937
>Instead, maybe you should read the works of theoreticians other than an internet schizo, so that you don't come off as an utter idiot who doesn't know the principal ideas of formalism and Brecht's theater while trying to discuss the nature of art.
It's not like I haven't already read other people. Point me in the direction of one who touches on video games and I will read them. Your suggestions however do not at all mean that you've formally refuted his ideas.

>I'm alien to being called a faggot and talked down to like I'm an idiot.
Why do you think he's addressing you?

The only critism I hear of scruton is that he isnt a leftist. Hes very moderate.

Good high quality discussion as always guys!

>>11301234
fpbp

>>11301225
don't bother. i don't even mind conservatives, he's just a hack though. read actual Catholic doctrine instead.

>>11303451
yeah! the actual fucking doctrine!
roasted 'im.

>>11301666
I have no plans to ever read a tobacco industry shill, but anyone who complains about anti-intellectualism is a dope. Academia is nothing more than a think tank for the radical left at this point and they have used their power to normalize the worst forms of extremism.

>>11301666
>>11302298
Jesus Christ, what a meltdown between the two posts. I'm glad somebody put this dickhead in his place.

>'Conceptual art', as it has come to be known, is said to make 'comments', or raise 'questions', whose content can never be explained or, when explained, seems entirely banal. I am not sure whether Warhol intended the boxes to be a joke. But that's how I take them.

>By taking the Brillo Boxes as paradigmatic you create a role for philosophers that seems to make them more necessary to the art-world than they are. But this comes from what Wittgenstein would have called a 'one sided diet of examples': only those things that 'challenge', that 'transgress', that 'move the boundaries' are to be considered. The fact that Andrew Wyeth, Miles Richmond, Reg Butler and many, many more were producing their best work at the time of the Brillo Boxes, adapting the great tradition of figurative art to the portrayal of modern life and to the discovery of beauty within it — such a fact had no place in the worldview of Arthur Danto, and so he did not notice it. The 'death of art' idea meant something serious when Hegel first announced it — namely, that discursive thought was in the process of displacing the immediate image from the centre of our social consciousness. But, in Danto's version of the idea, it is a cliche, and I would go so far as to say that the kind of art that interested him was a cliche too.

>For me anything is a work of art if it is intentionally designed as an object of aesthetic interest, just as anything is a joke if it is intentionally designed as an object of laughter. Works of art can fail to arouse aesthetic interest at all; they can arouse it and also satisfy it; they can arouse it in ways that are corrupt or disgusting — and so on.

I don't see what the problem with this guy's views on art is. Seems reasonable to me.