/lit/ - Literature

>>12103632
When it's a culture's prevailing worldview, yes. Its domain of knowledge is by defintion narrow. Any cultural manifestation of its truth-claims will be just as narrow.

>>12103632
"culture" only matters to people who are too stupid for science

>>12103632
no

>>12103667
Not /pol/, step up your bait game, rebbit.

>>12103667
Science is culture.

>>12103708
science doesn't mean shit as long as it disregards magic and metaphysics.

>>12103719
To disregard the metaphysical is one of the inevitable outcomes of the Faustian thought-form. The theory of limits is the best representation of its soul, and as we delineate them (or rather fail to), the despair and anger of hard materialism is not only valid but a healthy response.

>>12103667
Your culture establishes the basis for your entire worldview you utter brainlet.

>>12103632
No. Science, history, grammar, religion, all organise a culture. Culture destroys man by systemizing him into comfortable repetitions and averages. Just look at /v/. Systemic culture, and absolutely no value to humanity.

It would be more correct to say that it destroys traditional cultures but replaces what it destroys with its own productions. The cultural instinct simply reroutes around the obstacles placed by science, or, more specifically, technologies which are the culture products of science. This is how you get cargo-cultists of science, I FUCKING LIVE SCIENCE (exclamation mark) types. See, science might discover some fact of the universe, that is all well and good, but there is a world of difference between the psychology of the scientist who is able to prove a theory, reproduce the results and understand the why of it, as opposed to the cultist who may hold a view that is supported by science, but could not on their own support the view, understand why it is true on their own, rather they must fall back on a dogmatic appeal to the authority of those who do understand because they 'why' eludes them, disinterests them even, so they cling tightly to the 'what'. Scientists are made in to priests, even against their own will.

>>12103632
Science certainly has made different art forms accessible both to be enjoyed and to be created by a larger group of people.

In stead of the conclusion of hours of hard work being one painting, it can now be endlessly reproduced and to be enjoyed by an infinitely larger group of people. The internet is an obvious cause of this, but before this there were magazines, posters etc. that would make it possible for paintings to be reproduced. A side-effect of this is that the character if the art changed. It no longer was connected to a specific place, but was to be enjoyed at multiple places at once, which made it devoid of its former 'uniqueness'. What makes the Mona Lisa special? The skill involved, obviously. The place it has in History. But also the fact that there is only one 'real' Mona Lisa.

It is not uncommon for artists to be employed to make paintings before the emergence of reproducibility of paintings. Rembrandt famously only worked on commission. He was employed, similar to how graphic workers these days are employed for their services of providing pictures their clients asked for.

I could keep typing but I'm tired and I feel this steering towards a rant which I'm not prepared to finish. Sorry for incompleteness

>not renouncing your culture entirely and creating a new one where information from other cultures is re-framed to bring up children into the light of pure truth and unadulterated genius

There really is no point in trying to argue with science. The whole goal of science is to be a definitive set of facts about the material world, so it is always going to be correct about the material world. When scientists start getting cocky and applying science to the immaterial, that's when the real shit starts.

>>12103828
>The whole goal of science is to be a definitive set of facts about the material world

>>12103834
Based as fuck holy shit that reply was so fast you absolute madman

THIS.

>>12103828
look up paradigm.

your view of science if so fucking off and i'm not explaining you. educate yourself bafoon

>>12103799
>I'm living in the Belle Epoque
Has Turner v Ruskin happened in your world or is this a Duchamp's about to dab on your mass produced postcards replay?

>>12103869
Sorry, Whistler not Turner. Time travel's hard.

>>12103869
Not sure what you're getting at.

>>12103982
The internet didn't start that argument. It's been running since before there were Protestants. The ease of reproduction and potential mass uses and abuses has played out a few times before.
Ruskin sued Whistler around the turn of the 20th Century for charging too much for a painting that he'd done quickly and which looked like someone's six year old could do it. Whistler's comment that what made it art was the artist's history, and it as not the painting but the years of experience he was charging high prices. It's one of the major turning points in Modernism.
Duchamp made a ready-made from a postcard of the Mona Lisa called L.H.O.O.Q (she's a hot ass) and drew a moustache on it. It was the first ready-made but not the first mass produced satire, because Bataille has created a print of her pipe smoking in 1883.

Basically, this meme comes back every technology. Before that pamphleteers and illustrators kept "misappropriating" and reproducing shit to everyone's annoyance. Before the printing press, there used be all kinds of worry that too many people would learn to read or paint, which is why there were guilds to protect scribes and illustrators, just like the Church used raise children to become scribes so they could keep the intellectual property in house: in first millennium Ireland, monks are fighting intergenerational battles for reproduced texts, claiming authorship entitles them to every copy (as the skin belongs to the calf, so does the book to the author: the famous line from that court case)

The bigger problem is that nobody ever wants to pay for art. Graphic workers make shit wages, and what makes a lot of graphics work on screen is still tedious hand painting, which the client assumes can be automated and so they also don't need to pay for. That's not new either because we've lost Michelangelo's because the replacement pope didn't like the guy before him or his bills.

The problem with your argument for the graphic worker creating high art: to have the skill and experience of a Goya or Caravaggio or even a Dalí or Warhol, you need to not live the life of a contented graphics worker whose job relies on science that anyone could do. Science making art easier just means that- it makes the bar for skilled higher. It makes graphics painters cheaper than a movie ticket, but that hasn't stopped talent, just like miles of mutilated bodies and the Spanish Inquisition didn't stop Goya. People still hold seeing his originals above reproductions, even when they're prints originally. Getting paid fuck all doesn't stop graphics worker from turning out images for cents on the frame to have their skills compete: it makes them more competitive, and paint frames at a loss to hourly labour costs.

>>12104189
1870 is the Whistler case I think.