/lit/ - Literature

Nobody bothers making objectivist art anymore largely because art academia has been completely subverted and nobody is teaching or learning HOW to make objectivist art, at least in America. Its actually a horrifying situation that the academics are completely silent over. You have students going through university art classes and never learning anatomical drawing for example.

>>18754628
>objectivist art
I'm unfamiliar with this term. Is it specifically in reference to painting?If so, I would guess the rise of photography and video have sort of made the ability to paint hyper realistically obsolete. I still think students should have to learn how to paint like old master, if only so they can break the rules later.
>>18754603
We're in a tough spot where it's difficult to even imagine what groundbreaking literature would even look like. Every rule seems to have been broken. Every style exhausted. Tack on to that the spiritlessness of the age and the predomination of capital, and it seems difficult to believe even in the possibility of genius anymore. I don't think genius is a total spook. However, I also think it is a phenomenon that requires a kind of public consensus about its possibility in order to exist. We no longer believe in the possibility of artistic genius. We believe in large-scale societal forces and materialism, not the individual creative soul. Just as most people don't understand the phenomenon of sin anymore, because we're not a Christian culture and those interpretations have been replaced with mental health discourses and other interpretive frameworks, similarly, the phenomenon of genius, especially in the literary realm, cannot come to life in our current cultural context. IDK.

>>18754603
>true piece of art
Define true piece of art and explain why e.g. Rick and Morty or The Big Bang Theory doesn't qualify

>>18754694
I don't gotta define shit for you pea brain. If you can't figure it out for yourself just fuck off.

>>18754603
So much true OC art has been recognized on /lit/

>>18754603
>Modern age
>Art
Pick one

>>18754713
Have sex loser

>>18754603

Great writers like Kraznahorkai are rolling along, loved by the minority of people who read them. The problem isn't not appreciating it, it's a lack of people who even bother to look.

>>18754670
god, were you not able to fit in some more cliche bullshit in your shit post

>>18754776
with which part do you disagree? Also, if you think the argument that genius can no longer occur because our culture tacitly denies its possibility is cliche I'm impressed by the quality of popular media and discourse. I'd like to see more ideas like that printed on Hallmark cards.

>>18754729
You're throwing out over a hundred and fifty years of art.

>>18754670
>I'm unfamiliar with this term.
Because it's not a real thing.

>but if some genius did make a true piece of art in the modern age is there anyone smart enough to appreciate it. It would probably be brushed of as garbage by all the fake intellectuals on this board

>>18754603
My prose is shit but once people plotfag it up, I might go to jail in Canada for the content of my STRICTLY SATIRICAL, DARKLY HUMOROUS BOOK

I have like 80 IQ, I wish people could just understand that and judge my plotfag ability

>>18754801
>'art' of the last 150 years
>Art
Pick one

>>18754603
No. That's a huge part of the problem.

Yeezus/pablo by Kanye, drain gangs discog, and PC music's discog are the only good modern art. lit is dead seemingly and music has been dead since covid

>>18754603
criticism is dead, see:
>>18754729

>>18755046
Fuck off

>>18754603
The first reason why nobody will put the effort and dedication into anything good these days is that there's a 100% chance nobody will see it and not a single penny would be made from it. Not grand riches and fame but nonzero appreciation and returns. This is because we live in a discount culture economy where you're supposed to pay $5 to get a bag of 1000 books. There's simply no room to exist for anyone buy J. K. Rowling types who can make millions even if they get one cent per book, or living advertisers under the system's patronage, who are given awards to represent propaganda. Generally there's just no money, or any kind of returns for people who want to do something good, considering that good things take a lot of time and effort to make.
Add to this that now you are supposed to spend even more time and resources to advertise yourself, peddling your shit all over the internet, again with no guarantee, and most of the time this means changing what you do and changing yourself and turning yourself into something similar to the things of which there are hundreds of thousands of copies already, and it's just not worth it.

>>18755039
>drain gangs discog
based

>>18755179
Fuck off Marx

>>18755179
Based.

Even if I had the ability (and it should be said, I don't), why in heavens would I spend 30 years of my life working on a single epic poem, knowing that it will be immediately supplanted in the collective conscience of society by the next Marvel film to come out?

>>18755179
Good.
The problem with art is that it has been completely commercialized, this attracts charlatans who want to make a quick buck by making trash that appeals to the lowest common denominator.
If you want to make art it should be because you want to express yourself, not to become rich off of it.

>>18755179
Great fucking post.

I am a photographer and if there is an art medium which is completely fucked by the internet then it is photography. People since the dawn of photography till the one decade ago use to think that final form of a photograph is print but now the only form of photograph is digital. Everyday billions of photographs are being posted on the internet. This field has been completely fucked into depths of digital noise to the point there is no return. I think this true more or less for all art.

>>18755519
>Good.
>The problem with art is that it has been completely commercialized
You are a retarded brainlet. Literally every good thing that came out in the arts was made by an individual who got paid. You don't understand shit because you're blinded by your dumb consumerism. You think getting paid for work is capitalism. Kill yourself you fucking imbecile.

>>18755179
>The first reason why nobody will put the effort and dedication into anything good these days is that there's a 100% chance nobody will see it
This is a non-sequitur. High art is never created because of the potential of publicity and profit. High art will still be made (if the potential is even there, which is a different question altogether), it will just be kept under wraps and not publicized, or not widely acknowledged, because the "art market" is completely saturated by plebeians with horrid taste. It's the price we pay for the socialization of culture, which is to say the decline of real nobility and rise of the third and fourth estates.

>>18755625
Bourgeois society in 19th and early 20th century produced tons of good art. Something changed, probably with the advent of broadcast media, universal literacy, and the rise of the 'manager' type caste.

>>18755625
>High art is never created because of the potential of publicity and profit.
The greatest works of art of the past were made by people who had the means of doing it professionally. It doesn't matter how you bend yourself backwards to cope, they were made by professionals who directly got paid for their work. There is absolutely nothing wrong or evil or "capitalist" in getting paid for work. This notion is far more ancient than capitalist exploitation and of course the fucking internet.

>>18754694
Just because it is difficult, if not impossible to articulate a definition for art, does not mean that everything is art or that art doesn't exist.

>>18755631
Not tons, some. Most of it was mediocre and romanticist garbage. It was just a large quantity, which should never be confused for quality.
>>18755633
>The greatest works of art of the past were made by people who had the means of doing it professionally.
Ok, but that has nothing to do with my post. I don't disagree with you.
>they were made by professionals who directly got paid for their work
This is not universally true, but in the cases where it was true, it was usually patronage, and the artist was already aspiring and talented before any money was given to them, so that it was not the prospect of being paid itself which made their art possible.

>>18755039
>PC music
before it got subverted by (((hyperpop)))

>>18755651
>but in the cases where it was true, it was usually patronage, and the artist was already aspiring and talented before any money was given to them
you can only tell if the artist was "already aspiring and talented" after he's known, you are making the extremely biased assumption that people who come to this conclusion have not tried their best, which is the same old narrative that gets pushed all the time when someone says it's not worth it to do some suicidal cuck thing for the sake of the spectacle.
And it's not just a money thing, my original post mentioned recognition as well. Even the nobles who made art because they were sitting on fat stacks of cash anyway had a mission that they wanted to realize. There's a complete guarantee that unless you play with marketing tactics and just produce work and submit it to the "public" you will get nothing at all. Even actual recognition on the internet amounts to what? Someone putting a thumbs up on your work? Do you think you can change society or someone's life with anything? What you create is a dopamine snack or a colorful badge that people can use to accessorize.

>>18755651
Romanticism was only one portion of the period in question, which saw a diversity of movements in each art, and there is nothing wrong with it anyway

>>18754603
You're describing degenerate art aka anti-art, which is made all the time and gets rightfully brushed off as garbage, especially when it's literally garbage.

>>18754603
If someone made an artistic masterpiece today there wouldn’t be enough people to declare it an artistic masterpiece. The success of art is contingent on strong societies that venerate certain works, and we no longer live in that kind of world. 50 years from now the most acclaimed works of art are going to be commercialized shit that fit into the cultural malaise of our age instead of standing above it, like TPAB by Kendrick Lamar and the film Moonlight.

>>18755952
People recognize these things which is why the art you mention are masterpieces. You just don't like them.

>>18755547
You need to sell physical prints, whether it is books or photos!

>>18754603
Correct. And as someone once said, if Jesus or Buddha appeared in modern day America, he would be shunned as lazy and a leach.

Just look at the Holderlin thread. Hardly any replies and one retard complaiing that people even try.
And this is one of the greatest authors. If it were some anon writing a great work the response wouldn't be much better than a Horia Belcia.

>>18756845
You have missed that part about advertising your work through social media in this >>18755179 post. I can't do that. And nobody look at images for then 4 seconds these days. It's just endless scrolling and mindless double tapping. Go take a look at >>>/p/ it's just mindless consoomerism rather than a discussion about art. The so called photographers there have zero knowledge about photography as an art form. Hell, the """photographers""" these days can't even name 5 essential or canonical photographers without searching on google. And art photography itself is dominated by upper class liberal academia, the rich cunts who pay 200k dollars for their MFA degrees.

I have no hope left in photography.

I know of great, genuinely great artists who are alive making art today who have no real popularity nor name recognition, someone like Donald Sidney fryer is pure quality but people don’t want quality right now, they don’t care for it and especially not in literature. You can find great art; just follow trends from authors you like and you’ll find them, but they’ll be lost to time, just as many authors who we may have loved have also been lost to time.

>>18756987
>age 86 years

>>18755039
The Fool is the most /lit/ album of the decade so far

>>18756987
>Donald Sidney fryer
can't find a single painting online, can you share?

>>18756987
>Donald Sidney fryer
Who?

>>18757001
>>18756987
People who were established before the web are like from another historical period, you can't count them in. Many of the great artists from that generation would be literally whos today and would not make a dime if they had to participate to today's market. Not to mention all the people with weird or disagreeable personalities. After the web everything changed really fast. You can't go back in time so if you are a literally who today you can't take some boomer as reference for what it takes to succeed.
>>18756959
Same with painting.

>>18754603
The thing about making stuff is that making stuff is hard, vulnerable, and time consuming. People are lazy and it's easier to comment and critique, or critique commentary, or give commentary to critique etc etc.

I unironically think about this like... unfunny video from 2008 that parodied the whole "we are anonemoose we are lejun" thing a lot when it comes to stuff, but like, specifically internet discourse. Which has just become discourse now, I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-wlYUOgX-4

“If you don’t like something you say it sucks and you make a bunch of more things against it. But the thing is, half the people who are against it aren’t making anything. All they’re doing is posting links to CP and writing desu desu desu a lot.”

Like, that is pretty much it. I know that's a very eyerolly (or cringey if you're like thirteen I guess) thing to reference on this very serious board on this very serious website but like... yeah?

Plus very very few people, now or ever, have had the time or energy to dedicate themselves solely to a craft. Like yeah you get total mutants who just like, spin gold like it's nothing but the very unsexy unromantic reality is that a lot of people just can't make stuff anymore. Like I literally rent out rooms to artists for dirt cheap specifically for this reason.

>>18754603
>tfw the story of Bob made me cry.

>>18757124
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sidney-Fryer
Sounds like an incredibly based man

>everyone whines about how art and literature are dead
Morons whine about this. Anyone who takes an interest in contemporary writing or contemporary art knows it isn't true

>>18754804
Cope

>>18757206
Then please recommend us some contemporary artists.

>>18757217
Whoever I recommend will be quibbled with, we both know how this game works.
Tacita Dean is good. If Colm Toibin was from the 19th century everyone here would read him and say he was good

>>18757209
That definition isn't in any way related to what OP was talking about though?

>>18754603
All art is implicitly commerical, which just means it's commoditizable. Art as a commodity is central to Marxian analysis - where all art is inherently childish, and people crave childhood. The materially useless can only be endowed with social significance after a labour transformation, not before. To paraphrase Ernst Kapp:
>where metric ceases, art begins; where rational measurement begins, art's incommensurability ends.
The visual arts (sketching/painting) predominate in the production-pipeline (concept/environment/character/vehicle/etc). Classical skills are emphasized in every classroom where ability actually determines whether you're hireable post-graduation. The profit-motive for production and retention of technically skilled (i.e. draughtsmanship) team-members is incredibly high and very competitive. If you want to see how high-skill artists react to low-skill artists, I recommend watching a few of Adult Swim's Development/Pitch meetings. They're a blast.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0i_ACubNXI

>>18757230
>look it up
>usual huge ass low effort modern faggotry filling a whole wall of a room
please fuck off, I regret every single time I decided to trust you stupid fags
it gets quibbled with because it's shit and it means nothing

>>18754603
> but if some genius did make a true piece of art in the modern age is there anyone smart enough to appreciate it.
Yes me, but unfortunately I won't be reading it because I don't read contemporary garbage

>>18757329
>Yes me, but unfortunately I won't be reading it because I don't read

>>18757327
>I was born in le wrong generation
Likewise there is no point engaging with you. You will always beg the question or play no true scotsman to avoid conceding that any modern writer or modern artist might possibly have merit.
If you think the painting in OP and all the other 19th century academic stuff is somehow inherently superior to this, I can't persuade you otherwise. But do you see how similar you are to kiddies on YouTube posting how Queen is REAL Music?

>>18757359
You are implying that I worship XIX century academicism because I think the modern artist you linked is shit. No anon, I just think the modern artist you linked is shit. The main reason why art is shit today, which you fail to understand, is that it's never relevant to the spirit of people. You could argue this about XIX century academicism, that the art was a soulless commodity, but there were still many artists who believed in their craft. Today there's no passion, there's only success. Artists spend more time marketing themselves than making their stupid lazy shit photography that they commission to be printed blown up so it's 30 feet square.
The issue with contemporary art is that it's about nothing. It doesn't speak. You could have an AI shit this out, random colors and images that mean nothing.

>>18757359
>>18757392
Would you agree that the entire thread is an argument for discerning canonicity (everything being "art" intersubjectively)? Is the problem satisfying the correct criteria, or assuming a satisfiable criterion at all?

>>18757230
>Tacita Dean
Meh.

>>18757327
Bryan Schutmaat, Rinko Kawachi, Feng Li, Ren Hang. These are some contemporary photographers on top of my mind, check them out.

>>18757359
This photograph alone along with his whole Pittsburgh project mog the shit out of such stale image

http://www.artnet.com/artists/w-eugene-smith/smoky-city-from-the-pittsburgh-series-a-mJWzhKfpNbj2wdak53FjpQ2

>>18757441
Those are some very nice photos

>>18757230
>Tacita Dean
Traces photographs.

>>18754670
>We're in a tough spot where it's difficult to even imagine what groundbreaking literature would even look like. Every rule seems to have been broken. Every style exhausted
Isn't that what caused the renaissance?

>>18757409
>Would you agree that the entire thread is an argument for discerning canonicity
No, this thread isn't about "what is art", this is a nonsensical question like "define a biological woman". People with half a brain know when they're looking art. Postmodern relativism can go fuck itself, this has always been about quality.

>>18754694
>Rick and Morty or The Big Bang Theory doesn't qualify
They are true pieces of art just not good ones

>>18757392
>It doesn't speak
For you. But it might speak to others perhaps? And speak as much as the things you like?

>>18757486
>But it might speak to others perhaps?
Sure, but ask yourself: are you a pseud or a sheep? You'll find that the answer is yes.

>>18757469
>this has always been about quality
Rather a meaningless concept. The YouTube kiddies say the same thing, that Queen is objectively of better quality than whatever strawman of modern music they are performatively disliking.

Eh. We're at a point where there's more than enough good literature to last a lifetime. So I really don't care about the state of modern art or literature.

Sometimes I'll look up the state of modern art and lit and just cringe. It seems that for most modern critics or professors they consider themselves more important than the artist or work. The novel or art is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is their analysis. The art can be the worst thing imaginable but it doesn't matter at all. The only thing that matters is the high school English level of analysis they can make up. This is no doubt done so that the humanities major can justify their existence by claiming that there is a deeper level of understanding that only they can see because of their education. It is literally no different than those people who are really into horoscopes or who claim they have had supernatural encounters.

That's why so many people reject high school or college level English. Because they know it's just made up bullshit but they don't want to say anything because they'll just be accused of being too dumb to understand. And this kind of analysis has pretty much infected every single area of the humanities. That's why Bob Dylan won the Nobel. Just so the committee can act like they have a deeper understanding of literature than everyone else. That's why terrible art is always pushed to the front because it's easy to understand and it's easy to make up some deep analysis about it. For example, some artist put two clocks next to each other and made them tick at the exact same time. The pseudo educated liberal people ate it up and praised this work of genius because it allowed them to create simple analysis that made them seem deeper and more educated than the rest. And they especially relish wherever someone says that it's stupid and it's just two clocks because they get to say "no no no. It's much more than that. Thankfully I have an arts degree and I have a much deeper understanding than you." Again, the art doesn't matter. There is no such thing as bad art. There's only good art and any other art that doesn't support their political or social beliefs.

Because of this current climate, good artists or writers will never be discovered. All of academia and the educated classes purposely gravitate towards simple works of art. There no longer exists that small group of people who can champion hidden talent because the current establishment will immediately reject anything that is even remotely difficult. All of the truly educated people have left the arts. And the ones who still crave creativity will go into other areas that are far removed from the traditional arts. Heck I'm sure some went on to make memes or into other pursuits where nobody will know that they were responsible for making that like in movie production or ghost writing. The era of the individual artist is over. And probably of the author as well.

>>18755952
Commercial/generic art has always existed. It's just that people only remember the masterpieces

>>18757499
>n... no you
When you like a thing, do you like it in some deeper richer way that nobody else could possibly understand? Perhaps people who like different things might like those things just as intensely as you like the things you like? Maybe you are all sincere.

>>18757469
Yeah, but quality doesn't inhere in objets d'art, so what you're actually arguing about is the criteria for quality, hence the question about canonicity. Pretty straightforward, as questions go. What differentiates (tangibly, mind) superior from inferior?

>>18757509
>>18757523
>Rather a meaningless concept
>Perhaps people who like different things might like those things
Beauty is universal, you have just been reprogrammed or you care more about the agenda than the content.
Everyone with eyes to see detests modernism, the only way to make them "appreciate it" is to brainwash them in school with how great these artists are and how powerful their message is.
Fucking commies ruined everything.

>>18757553
>Beauty is universal
But opinions aren't and not every work centers on beauty

>>18757337
I do read though.

>>18757567
>not every work centers on beauty
Yes it does, every work of art portrays beauty, even the most tragic war photographer does that

>>18757598
>every work of art portrays beauty
This is just an example of many. Just because beauty is a highly recurring theme across art doesn't mean you can just generalize it like that

>>18757612
>This is just an example of many.
Why did you choose this one and not a Pollock?

>>18757637
Idk it just popped into my mind

>>18755179
I don’t want to do something good, I want to get paid.

>>18757644
The painting you posted is 200 hundred years old, why didn't a modernist painting made in 2010 come to your mind?

>>18757553
I don't think I've been brainwashed and I don't have an agenda, but I genuinely think Tacita Dean is better than Landseer.
I mean, come on, he's a bit shit. Looks like something my grandma has on a plate.
He did that shitty one with the polar bears I think? Just because he use oils and is old doesn't mean we should hold him up

>>18757660
At least he's trying to say something.

>>18757657
Because when i think of a piece of art that doesn't portray beauty Saturn eating his son in a dark cave is a very good example
You claimed that every work of art centers on beauty and i showed you a clear example of one who doesn't. Does it really make a difference if the piece in question is from 200 hundred years or 2?

>>18757685
>Because when i think of a piece of art that doesn't portray beauty Saturn eating his son in a dark cave is a very good example
>You claimed that every work of art centers on beauty and i showed you a clear example of one who doesn't.
But it does. There is beauty in tragedy. I said it before,
>every work of art portrays beauty, even the most tragic war photographer does that
What does a Pollock represent? There's nothing human in it.

>>18757680
Is he though? And is Dean not trying to say something?

>>18757637
Bro if you need a paradox of beauty and ugliness then say no more. Now I am going to share a few photographs of a Nazi photographer who illegally took the photos of invasion of Ukraine and highly beautify those images due to his background in modernist art movements like New Objectivity.

Photographs are from photobook, The Eye of War by Dieter Keller

>>18757730

>>18757738

>>18757712
Yes by the sole intent of representation. There's beauty in this animal. I do not think this is some sort of supreme art, but human contact with nature has always been emotional. You can see that the artist is representing certain things about the animal and making certain choices. What the modernshitter does is take a photo of shapes. I have hundreds of photos like those but I can't pay someone to make a 30 foot wide print of them and install it in a museum. I don't have the money to commission a shark in formaldehyde and put a signature on it. Do you think taking a random shark and putting it in formaldehyde implies the same decision-making and personal projection on the final work as a sculpture or painting of a shark?
Do you know why so many "realistic" sculptures made today are kind of shit? They're 3D prints or molds from real people. There is no personal choice involved by the artist. When Bernini sculpted his figures yes he did use a model but he was consciously making decisions from start to finish, every muscle, every bit of flesh, it was part of him as much as it was part of the marble.
This is why I give inherently more respect to old artists. Perhaps just because of a coincidence (traditional media, no means to mass produce or achieve the same things without effort) they were forced to make decisions and this comes out in the final work. This is what art is about. You're putting yourself, your personal choices about reality on the canvas. Even photography does this when it's figurative and not obsessed with shape. Photography that is representational is still reality filtered through a man's eyes. He makes choices. When a modern artist takes 1000 random shots of a tree and decides that "the shapes in this one are interesting" but she needs to blow it up to 30 feet so it's more impressive you're looking at a hack's work.

>>18757744

>>18757750

>>18757761

>>18757707
>There is beauty in tragedy
No, there isn't. Something beautiful naturally enriches the human spirit which is what makes one attracted to keep experiencing it
Something like Saturn devouring his son is inherently not beautiful because it presents the deformation and massacre of the human form, which is something inherently beautiful
>>18757730
>>18757738
>>18757744
This kind of pictures raise an interesting question but at the end i'd argue that even though the techniques show the skill of the author the subject itself is still one of gruesomeness and brutality

>>18757767
Absolutely great breaking sequence and still extremely beautiful

>>18757777
It's literally just disaster porn.

>>18757746
>Do you know why so many "realistic" sculptures made today are kind of shit? They're 3D prints or molds from real people
Oh yes those are shit. That one of Medusa with the head of Perseus or some nonsense? Yes it's garbage.
>Do you think taking a random shark and putting it in formaldehyde implies the same decision-making and personal projection on the final work as a sculpture or painting of a shark?
Pretty much yes, so I suppose we'll disagree. It's harder to sculpt, or get your assistants to paint it I guess, but difficulty doesn't really matter does it? I'm sure Keats tossed off some of his best work in an evening.
Though it's not as expensive to get an exhibition on as you seem to think. Plenty of spaces if you live in a big city, blow up your own photos and maybe in the next thread some shitposter will be defending you.

>>18757730
>>18757738
>>18757744
>>18757750
>>18757761
>>18757767
>>18757777
Are you actually moved by these? I guess I've never understood Photography, it's always flat and sterile without personal context, like looking through a textbook. The images might be evocative, but there's no stimulation because there's no simulation. Does that make sense?

>>18757776
>the subject itself is still one of gruesomeness and brutality
Yes I am not denying that. But I have spend a lot time learning the aesthetics of photography so compositionally these images are highly aesthetic and masterfully crafted but subject wise these are totally brutal.

I don't know I am stuck with a paradox. At times like these Dostoyevsky's quote "that beauty will save the world" totally crumbles into dust. I don't know want to say about these photographs.

>>18757785
>but difficulty doesn't really matter does it?
I am not talking about difficulty but about making choices. When you sculpt or paint something you are filtering every bit of the reality you are representing through your own decision making. You agreed with me on this point when you said that 3D printed sculptures are shit. That's why: they artist is making no decisions. Mind you, I'm not talking about difficulty or skill. I am talking about decisions. Goya took decisions when he painted Saturn eating his son. A sketch made by a skilled artist looks beautiful because the artist is taking decision, nothing is "random" about it. When you throw a shark in formaldehyde you are not filtering anything, you are taking a piece of meat and you are putting it into a chemical. When you spray paint on a canvas you are not deciding anything. "Shapes" can look as nice as you want, they cannot represent one's inner world.

>>18757810
Look up James Nachtwey, he's a war photographer. I think he's one of the greatest.

>>18754811
How long did it take you to write this book?

>>18757815
>I don't know want to say about these photographs.
Maybe that's how we can tell the difference
Real beauty is undisputed and our perception of it is almost instinct

>>18757780
Nah, it's way much more than that. Just think about the relation of aesthetics with Truth. Don't you trembler from watching your worldview getting shatter into pieces?

>>18757810
>Are you actually moved by these?
Yes, this is the first photobook which made me cry. The amoral voyeurist photographer in me absolutely adore these images and want pursue the compositional framework but the human in me breaks down.

This is the real war between Truth and aesthetics.

>>18755655
I meant classic pc like Hannah Sophie gfoty ag etc. not 100 gecs and that shit

>>18757860
I agree.
And as you spend time with it your intellect takes and other questions start cooking up.

>>18756354
no

>>18757776
>>18757780
>>18757810
>>18757831
>>18757858
There is one other thing I am thinking and that is the relationship between painting and photography.

When you see painting of war I think there is certain kind of romantic element in it and there is a lot of room for ambiguity. But photography shows you how really it went down from the lens of photographer. It doesn't matter what the photographer's subjectivity is, war always look extremely ugly on camera. But even the blood on painting look romantic or "kino".

Is only the artist's subjectivity real or true in art?

>>18757963
I think that happens because when you make a painting of war there several artistic techniques that can't possibly reflect reality truthfully (color, composition etc...)
That said would the artist focus his efforts on depicting the horrors of a battle then it's possible to end up with something more ugly to the eye than a real battle

>>18757963
They're different mediums. Photography is reality and you're looking where the artist is looking. It's still representational but photography is a finger. It tells you where to look. Painting is a dream, it shows you something from the artist's internal dialogue about that same reality.

>>18754603
The world is being replaced by 1 and 0. People think they can read a Wikipedia page instead of a full literary masterpiece because they put more value on the accumulation of raw data than they do truly understanding the human experience. As we move to the future people try to emulate a computer more and more, everything is objective, everything is a fact. Humanity is already finished.

>>18757776
This is a major misunderstanding of Beauty and a small example of why we do not know of great contemporary artists. Beauty is not found in subject matter, such as the act of saturn, but in the creation of its form. It seems no one has sat to converse with themselves about art. It is telling that someone posting on a fucking literature board is crying about how tragedy cannot take a beautiful form. I don't see why we have to always bind this vague word to art, like we are all walking around experienceing the absolute beautiful essence of art and life as mock-poets.

>>18755613
You're even more of a brainlet. I think that anon understands that people get paid for art, but his point is that art is made to sell, not to affect. First thing that came to my mind is kpop, girls like Billie Eilish and generic novels with which if you've read one, you read them all. It's not the problem that people get money for creating, it's the fact that things are created for profit and not for self expression. Glorified materialism is part of the problem

>>18758953
>It's not the problem that people get money for creating, it's the fact that things are created for profit and not for self expression.
Then why is it good that not these people, but the people who actually have something to put into their craft should give up because it's 100% pointless? You are expecting people to pour sweat and blood into hard work that they will literally throw to the wind, because that's what putting shit on the internet is.
I will never understand this mindset. It's like someone says "yeah I quit jazz, I can't pay rent with jazz. I tried touring but I had to do it at a loss" and you're like SERVED YOU RIGHT YOU GREEDY SCUMBAG, LOOK AT THESE KPOP GIRLS MAKING TONS OF MONEY
It's so fucking deranged and childish to think of people like this.

>>18757858
Took only like 3 months to write 80k words during the 90+ days of AustinZone riots, watching the Portland courthouse burn over and over and over...

Then I sat on it for awhile, listened to the characters talk to me and explain what I needed to do differently to tell the story. Then I edited it a bit and took another break. Once I started printing out copies and getting feedback from liquor store and pop shop workers, I edited it some more and started shilling my shit here. I was made fun of quite a bit and it helped me step back and critically look at my own work.
Adding a bit more show, don't tell, pruning words, mixing up sentence order, just adding a bit more soul and tweaks here and there. I will probably release it the way it is now, but I'm going to change things for the 2nd edition. Been thinking lately that I'm going to do a max run of 100 books of the First Edition and then release a Second Edition based on more feedback I get.

Already started on the sequel, it's a fun book to write! My 1st book, I literally released like 24 hours after getting it back from two passes by some old lady I hired on the internet to edit. She didn't really put much effort in and cost me like $500 per edit pass back in 2013! Total rip off, but I wasn't interested in putting out the best product I could, was more interested in telling people that the well is being poisoned and that more people are going to be lonely, depressed, and just having sex to fill the void in their lives of having no family and no real connection to the opposite sex. Here in 2021, so much of what I predicted has come true...

>this shit thread got 112 replies

here comes the attention whore faggot, thread's over

>SOME THINGS ARE ART AND SOME OTHER THINGS ARENT ART BECAUSE THEY JUST ARE OKAY???

>>18759001
Maybe you should have something to share? Oh wait, you have no life experience and nothing to add since you also do not produce any art or culture.

I'm sorry anon. Maybe you just need to adventure a bit so you have something to bring to the table.

>>18757893
I know

>>18759004
Correct, tho. Rick and Morty just ain't art.

Maybe people should make art to glorify God. It worked for Dante.

>>18755179
Faggot detected
Art is about passion not money

>>18761036
Try making """art""" with passion while being a 9-5 Walmart wageslave.

>>18757074
This is a factual statement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbuHfR4KreQ

>>18754628
>Nobody bothers making objectivist art anymore largely because art academia has been completely subverted and nobody is teaching or learning HOW to make objectivist art, at least in America. Its actually a horrifying situation that the academics are completely silent over. You have students going through university art classes and never learning anatomical drawing for example.
There are very few people who even possess such talents to teach, if even there were students or a market willing to learn them. It's a full blown crisis in places like Japan where people simply don't know how to draw anymore.

>>18761049
That's why you have to live as an artist, generally you will gravitate towards more odd jobs than a 9-5 at wal-mart.

>>18761136
It's soul crushing bro

>>18754694
What is and isn't art? Until there is a definition people just fling shit around.

>>18754694
The only thing artistic about Rick and Morty is how masterfully and relentlessly it manages to provide non-stop stimulation to just the right spots in a onions bug's brain so that he's "nerdgasming" for the entire duration of the episode binge.

>>18761941
This. Rick and Morty doesn't do anything particularly original even for the animated sitcom 'genre' and certainly nothing new in sci-fi, but it reaches new lows in shamelessly exporting what little genuine intent there is in the writing to bugmen.

>>18759004
>>18759688
>>18761941
I'm not I think it is art, I think rick and morty is shit, but why isn't it art to you?

>>18761941
>>18761957
legit. i was forced to watch rick and morty while with friends and they were laughing non-stop throughout the entire episode.
kinda like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEo_thYmg3s

>>18761983
Its fun enough to turn your brain off to watch, but the realization that most of its audience turns their brain ON to watch it is horrifying.

Great art can absolutely still be made, but no one has done it, or those that have haven't been widely recognized.

Also I'd like to add that, for me, contemporary art is largely unappealing. I prefer to read about people and cultures distant in time and often also distant in space. I find there is far more value in that and I find it much more interesting, rather than reading about temporally or spatially proximate peoples/cultures/settings.

>>18762013
What is art, what is great art, and what separates them?

>>18762023
*And, not just written about such distant objects, but written by people who either lived within them or who themselves were distant in some way. I don't want to read some contemporary book set in some distant space.

>>18762026
Whatever you want it to be, babycakes.
I'm cool with a subjective definition here.

>>18755655
hyperpoop

It wouldn’t happen because this world is ugly.

>>18761982
I just that that it *was* art, just in the same way that chemical weapons are art.
>>18761983
You weren't "forced" to do anything. Why are you friends with deetards?

>>18761036
>if you want to live with below min wage money to make art full time you are greedy
>this is why only people who pander and make shit that caters to kids deserve to make any money
>in fact they make a lot of money and that's OK because they're making art for the sake of getting money
>but YOU should just work a 9 to 5 if you are passionate, and then come back home and work on your passion for 30 minutes before crashing to sleep because I ain't paying for that I just want to download it lol
brilliant mindset
I hope that one day, people who do things for "passion" will learn this and burn their work
after all if you make art for "passion" and for "yourself" it's perfectly OK to never show it to the world
imagine giving anything to people who just want to download your shit and then maybe insult you
and if you meet any degree of success they worship-hate you
you are little disgusting parasites and the scum of the Earth
everything is going to shit because of entitled children like you