/lit/ - Literature

>>14260132
Let's salvage this thread, shall we?

Now, let's discuss why marxists just about always make for awful artists.

Been plenty of liberal authors and artists, art is inherently elitist so capitialism and it comingle all the time

>>14260138
fuck off neo-con shill

>>14260138
They regard everything as political, so art for and them is just an instrument. This is why they shit out the dullest social realism period pieces constantly. They hate greatness in general, so a great Marxist artist is like a contradiction in terms. Marxists should stick to film and music, they seem capable of playing a bit and enjoying themselves in these mediums. They just ruin literature though.

>>14260390
read adorno dumbass

>>14260397
What does Adorno say of relevance here?

>>14260132
Yes, I would say probably every decent author with the exception of a few supported “capitalism”

>>14260138

It's the other way around, people who fail at whatever their discipline is tend to gravitate towards Marxism.

Sad, really.

>>14260409
he argues for the flip opposite of everything you say marxists do. he says political art is bad for the reasons you do; he wants communism in part because it'd be the end of politics and therefore art would be free from the shackles of politics. he says art that's political lacks 'autonomy' and can never be truly timeless because its value will always be contingent on the current political order. etc etc etc

>>14260138
>>14260390
I find that the two most hobbling things a typical Marxist artist has are
>limp-dicked, crypto-bourgeois humanism
>materialistic, deterministic, anti-"romantic", anti-"great man" etc. view of the world

The first is more common than the second, but many of them have both. I think the problem is that romantic and "irrationalist" art is somewhat perennial, but very anti-romantic and rational (in the sense of this-worldly, practical reason) art is only really refreshing in times of extreme oppression. Like, I imagine stark realist paintings of suffering labourers, of the nightmarish conditions in forges and factories, etc., must have been fascinating in 1875. And still today you can feel Dickens' confusion and despair at the march of industry, and his underlying humanism in response to it.

But when you get to the point that socialists are just beating themselves off for being "on the right side of history," so that EVERY fucking painting has to depict working conditions in forges or give voices to some subaltern gay transnigger latinx, it becomes parochial in its universalism. It takes on that forced, but also somehow lazy tone of bourgeois "compassion for the less fortunate." It's no longer sturm und drang, it's just a bunch of limp-wristed faggots repeating what we all already know, that oppression is bad and liberation is good, and increasingly repeating this to the exclusion of anything else. Everything has to be about liberating trannies from their bathroom confusions, the purpose of all history and humanity has to be creating a utopia where every whiny faggot can have whatever he wants. Again, there's that bourgeois undertone of "progress is utopia," with progress defined as material comfort. The leftist just extends "progress" to all classes, so that in utopia, everyone gets to be a bourgeois pussy drinking at Starbucks, not just the capitalists.

No matter how kitschy some romantic art might be, the impulse to respect and wonder at nature, the divine, and the unsolved mysteries of the world is going to be at least somewhat relevant. I definitely think inner emigration, to the exclusion of solving social problems, is irresponsible. But to become exclusively a faggoty romantic or decadent is just as bad as becoming a faggoty Marxist who thinks the only purpose of art is to give "representation" to whiny little bitches, so that they can eventually get their Starbucks and ironic Macbook stickers too.

Wasn't Dostoevsky a free market supporter?

>>14260424
This.

The most important philosopher since Bataille and one of the top three philosophical prose stylists. Slowfags are missing out.

>>14260435
this is a really simplistic and rose-colored reading of his Aesthetic Theory. he does not for one second think that under any conditions other than communist utopia, art is to be viewed as anything more than negotiations between the individual and the political. his opposition to "political art" is not that it sullies an a-political greatness of art, but that it falsely represents the actual political conditions of art. his position is more subtle and interesting than "all art is political" simpletons but don't kid yourself that he does not view all art prior to the achievement of communism as political instrumentation.

>>14260851
>Capitalism = Free market

???

>>14260931
free market capitalism

>>14260138
>Now, let's discuss why marxists just about always make for awful artists.
what? the creative types are inevitably always marxist