/lit/ - Literature

>>16626569
He was based and redpilled.

You dont need art to survive.

>>16626569
Art doesn't contribute to our survival very much.

>>16626569
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc
21:35
watch the whole video if you want context

>>16626581
that's not at all what it means, brainlet

Art is not included among the things considered useful by author, playwright, and suspected homosexual Oscar Wilde

>>16626673
in the context of the quote it does, retard

>>16626646
All he establishes is that humans have a sense of finding something beautiful, not what beauty actually is.

>>16626569
IT MEANS THAT ART HAS INTRISIC VALUE WITHOUT NEEDING TO SERVE SOME UTILITARIAN OR MORAL PURPOSE AKA L'ART POUR L'ART

>>16626706
>suspected

>>16626569
That value and quantifiable utility are not analogous.

He’s a decadent in the style of huysman, he believes art should be for art’s sake, for its own pleasure. That it isn’t essential but rather a delight and shouldn’t have any other use than something to delight in. To put it simply, the point is pure aesthetic value which is arbitrary, subjective and pleasure based to him.

>>16626924

I don't think the "decadent" idea of pleasure is the idea of pleasure involved in the aesthetic pleasure of art per se. It might be the pleasure involved in "erotic art" or something else, but that's distinct, and on some views actually detracts from the "art." Kant's view is that aesthetic pleasure is a pleasure found in the purposeless play of cognition. So maybe Wilde's view is similar. As the rest of that quote goes, and paraphrasing (see the link for the wider context), the "uselessness" of art, in any particular setting, is what makes it "useful" in all settings. And that's pretty similar to Kant's take, which is that the feature of art that makes it art is just its ability engage our cognitive faculties in a purely disinterested activity. It's not a leap to think that if it were also something with a "purpose" (like a diagram illustrating parts of the body) that purpose would detract from the aesthetic pleasure (on Kant's version) even if it doesn't distract from something like its capacity for arousal (which is what I take to be more in line with the "decadent" view).

>>16626823
This. The inverse of that quote is true, that function has no purpose if there's no art.