/lit/ - Literature

>>19418227
No, a Mona Lisa painted onto used toilet paper wouldn’t be as celebrated as a Mona Lisa on canvas

>>19418267
I don't think that's the point.

who

>>19418227
>bla bla bla words
Fuck off

>>19418454
Damn you mad

>>19418267
Did you just get bored reading halfway through the paragraph?

>>19418227
No, he isn't right. Humanity and meaning can be part of the medium. They are in fact components of a fully formed aesthetic sense. Works that rely on conveying human emotions have a subject matter that's irreducible to mere structure.

>>19418535
What?

>>19418563
There's no distinction between skillful use of concepts and subject overtaking form. If I use potent subject matter as the centerpiece of a profound work of art, even if the purpose is not to stress a subject, your philosopher may judge it "too much" subject. His formulation is mere snobbery against political art, probably quite warranted, but not a compelling argument for anything.

>>19418653
Why do you think Lolita's subject is neglected? It takes a deep dive into a narcissist's psychology.

>>19418667
>Why do you think Lolita's subject is neglected
I don't. That's the opposite of what I think.

>>19418653
I think he means subject as a thing rather than an individual.

>>19418693
what?

>>19418227

Yes.

Spirit transforms; mind formulates; body performs.

Matter, as a means of art, is instrumental & construmental —instrumental in formation, construmental in magnification.

>>19418454
This. Someone needs to hit that guy with a rock.

>>19418717
Yeah twitter posts are real lit.

>>19418227
Yes, it is correct, though you should pay attention to his terminology, which is a bit peculiar.
By material, in literature, he would mean, for instance, the story, and things like that; and, by form, the style and structure in which the story is told. He is correct. You can write a masterpiece about a shit story (Ulysses) as long as the style and structure are good.

>>19419056
what does the fact that structure can elevate content have to do with the question of whether content is ever relevant to art? Content can also elevate or transcend structure, but you wouldn't use that as evidence against the reverse.

>>19419153
What?

>>19419186
fuck you faggot retard.

>>19419186
what does the fact that structure can elevate content, have to do with the question of whether content is ever relevant to art? Content can also elevate or transcend structure, but you wouldn't use that as evidence against the reverse.

>>19419196
Huh?

>>19418227
he's wrong because the site of all beauty is the human mind. Objective artistic merit is in fact the "chemical law" of art and the messy involvement of artist and audience are the new and complex order. When dealing with humans, content always matters.

>>19418454
>/lit/

>>19419199
what does the fact that structure can elevate content have to do with the question of whether content is ever relevant to art? Content can also elevate or transcend structure, but you wouldn't use that as evidence against the reverse.

>>19419209
Eww

>start thread way above your head
>attempt to bucket crab and shitpost
>quit
the /lit/ch's progress

>>19419227
?

>>19418227
Absolute horseshit. The whole idea of a discreet work of art, as opposed to a copy, is rooted in made meaning and symbolism.
>structure, organism
these are just different words for how art is made, literally the materials and processes behind it. Otherwise a copy of the Mona Lisa would be equal to the original. Who painted the original, when, where, and how are all completely meaningless questions from an artistic standpoint, and yet the original is esteemed far higher than a flawless copy 10x its size.

The art form best suited to his analysis is music, in which sensation and perception occur simultaneously. It's crude and unsuited to conveying deep thoughts, whereas literature can have a great work like the Bible whose sole purpose and design is to evangelize you with oceans of meaning and contrivance. Visual arts are somewhere in between, but the point is he's retarded.

>>19419230
What?

>>19419358
He's talking about material as in plot, method, or subject you retards.

>>19420064
so is that post

OP here, I don't have an opinion on this really. It's just a cool sounding passage, and I like when my /lit/ frens feed me their smart opinions. So I won't contribute anything else and I don't understand what's been posted, but you guys should keep talking about it.

>>19420342
>literally the materials and processes behind it
Reyard

Compare

>>19420493
what's your question? Material/subject are used the same way in OP quote, interchangeably:
>the work of art is what it is thanks to the form it imposes upon the material or subject

>>19420389
Are you okay?

>>19420552
what?

>>19420548
>what's your question?
He called you a retard.
They're clearly not saying the same thing. OP is talking about the material as in what a lecture would cover while this anon (You) is talking about the material components and technical aspects, ie how a painting is made.
Learn to read.

>>19420572
>how a painting is made.
Subject is part of how a painting is made. Creativity as opposed to plagiarism is part of art, yet is an aspect of making. If I copy a painting or make a derivative piece of music, it's aesthetically equal to the original but the "material" as in, the substance behind it is not great art. The artist, his life and time are part of the substance of art. You can look on this as a flaw in humanity, but you can't deny it.

>>19420601
This has nothing to do with anything.

>>19419235
>>19419209
>the site of all beauty is the human mind

100% right and can't be refuted

>>19420612
It actually does. Unfortunately you somehow made this thread without the capacity for abstract thought. You somehow understand comparisons in books, but on here it goes out the window. You've proven you're not trolling, so that counts for something, but there's nothing more I can do here since it's all been laid out clearly and you just lack the wattage.

>>19420829
yep. Saying beauty exists in the universe is like saying love exists independent of people, or that trannies are women because they tap into the "sacred feminine."

>>19421827
Strong cope. Explain what the OP meant and then what materials and method has to do with the argument.

>>19421837
>t. hylic

>>19421865
Op meant that message is merely a rude component of art, not something that can serve as the centerpiece of a great work. It is, ironically, a cope, doubtless aimed at a popular work the artist didn't like. I gave the example of the bible as a great work centered on a message.

What OP paragraph refers to as the "structure and organism" of art are not clearly defined because the author would expose his argument. Even perceiving an object as art requires particular attention to media. This very concise and snappy paragraph lacks a meaningful distinction between the structure of art and the circumstances of its existence, e.g. a beautiful sunrise is not art, but a 500 year old scrap of canvas with a sunrise painted on it, from the right part of the world, could be considered a great work of art. How can this be, if message and media are only a substrate for aesthetics? An artist poring over his brushes is more compelling to us than a masterpiece crafted by unconscious processes.

>>19421936
Wrong

>>19418227
No, the desire to elevate art above material reality is naïve as it would be to try to do the same with anything. Material reality imposes on everything. It does not get imposed upon. To think otherwise is purely the words of human arrogance. Any great artist knows it as well, that they are merely permitted to create and become useless without the tools to do so.

>>19422363
Define material
Define reality
Define material reality
Prove the existence of material reality based on the definitions

>>19422390
>Define material
>Define reality
>Define material reality
>Prove the existence of material reality based on the definitions

no

>>19422390
Define Define

>>19422233
Like I said, I'm satisfied that I've already put everything you need into this thread, phrased several different ways to penetrate even the thickest skull. It tickles my ego to see you still so baffled, though. Even a person who can think and type like a white man is evidently an insect compared to myself.

>>19422897
Cringe. I doubt you've ever read anything.

>>19418227

I would simply like to note that the view expressed in the OP is effectively a structuralist view of literary criticism. Although in vogue during the middle part of the 20th century, structuralism began to decline as an idea not so much because it was wrong, but because some found it to be incomplete or reductive. This led to post-structuralism, postmodernism, with whose exponents /lit/ is very familiar.

>>19419358

You mean to say discrete-as in singular, separate, distinct from others- as opposed to discreet-quietly, secretly, so no one can see. The two are different words.

>>19423525
>the virgin reader
reposts the insights of others, and one-word shitposts
>the chad writer
thinks for himself and stands behind his own words

>>19418267
Ngmi

>>19423828
You're a non-writer and non-reader so what does it matter?

>>19424076
what?

>>19422897
You're dumb and posturing doesn't change that.

>>19424111
It's not posturing when my reasoning is right there. That might more accurately describe what you're doing, affecting superiority despite not having said anything this entire thread.

>>19424136
>my reasoning is right there
>>19421936
This?

>>19424142
yes, which was refuted by . . . oh well I'm sure you're next post will contain an elegant rebuttal.

>>19424150
pEaRlS bEfOrE sWiNe

>>19419210
>/lit/: four word sentences and pathological anger

>>19418227
Yes. That's why all the old ass books lit pseuds recommend are boring. Their subjects are outdated and irrelevant to current society and thus there is no art in the book itself.

>>19424345
what?

>>19418227
The material is the message.

yep it's lit time

>>19418531
Yes.

>>19419056
why do midwits like you always insist on giving their opinion arrogantly? If you think Ulysses is only goog because of it's style and structure and not the story being told, you are a retard who only reads literature on the most surface level.

>>19424558
you're right though, a cheap copy of the mona lisa has no artistic value. The quote hedges that conditions are necessary, but are not themselves art. In other words, if the art only matters because it was made by a specific person with a specific message, that can still qualify because art "needs" those things although they're not art. The quote attempts to set up a dichotomy between artistic conditions and artistic actuality, where none exists. The writer imagines he can tell the difference between a manipulative intentional message and profound artistry, he envisions art as a spiritual constant, unmistakable as good and evil. This is a really perverse, midwit and autist tier line of thinking. His final qualifier that things must be "too" focused on message to be bad is an admission that the whole statement boils down to bad art vs. good art.

>>19424631
>>19424643
God damn you are a pseud.

>>19424649
Only one of those is me, RETARD.

>The material never saves a work of art, the gold it is made of does not hallow a statue.
Here he is talking about physical material, but he umbrellas the material and the subject being represented together because they are both parts of the unavoidable foundation upon which art must be built. That foundation is not what makes it art.

>A work of art lives on its form, not on its material; the essential grace it emanates springs from its structure, from its organism.
The elegant way an author dances around their subject, or artist forms curves and ridges out of material or colored paint as a means of showing emotion towards the subject they are representing-- that is the substance of art.
The means of doing that interpretive dance is through imposing structures that are more complex than the subject.

>The structure forms the properly artistic part of the work, and on it aesthetic and literary criticism should concentrate.
Someone who criticizes or praises something for its subject matter, political or otherwise, is uncultured and has shit opinions. They are like someone who calls a statue of a coked-out fatass beautiful solely because it is made of gold.

>If too much stress is laid on the subject of a painting or a poem, sensitive nerves smell the Philistine.
If art is purely about the subject, it isn't art. Textbooks are not typically art, for example.

>No doubt, as there is no life without chemical processes, thus there is no work of art without a subject.
Acknowledging that a subject and physical material is necessary for it to exist, obviously.

>Just as life cannot be reduced to chemistry but begins to be life only when it has imposed upon the chemical laws other original processes of new and more complex order, so the work of art is what it is thanks to the form it imposes upon the material or subject.
This is a summary.

I made it even longer.
For those debating, following this logic you seem to be conflating monetary value with artistic value. If you copy the mona lisa in all of its detail(not just a flat image), it retains the same artistic value.

>>19424674
It's not material in that sense. Read these >>19420064
>>19420572

>>19424674
>If you copy the mona lisa in all of its detail(not just a flat image), it retains the same artistic value.
nope. You might get close if you then destroy the original. The fact is, the mona lisa like all the top western objects is hugely overrated on an aesthetic, that is an artistic level divorced from any meaning. There is no way to justify its stature without referencing the artist, which is a form of secondary meaning. The writer must redefine artistic value to mean something linear and apart from the existence of the piece in any real sense, rendering it meaningless. Without Da Vinci, mona lisa is (perhaps correctly rated) just a face in the crowd. However that doesn't capture the reality of art and art history, nor is any reason given for changing the definition of artistic value to something shittier and more autistic.

>>19424690
artist = process = material = conceit = message

>>19424690
The first sentence is very blatantly talking about physical material, in this case gold. Holy shit you people are definitely illiterate.
The difference between physical material and subject material is being diminished in OP because they are to be seen collectively as the canvas upon which art is drawn, or literature is written.

>>19424715
I was speaking from a theoretical standpoint in terms of technical ability to reproduce it. Da Vinci as a person is dead. If you look at a perfect recreation of Mona Lisa, it will be recognized as Da Vinci's work and thus his name, the only thing left of him, is still attached to the work you are looking at.

What will go down in such a case is monetary value and historical value. It isn't worth as much to a historian because the real person didn't touch it. Those are historians though, not artists. For that reason artistic value and historical value are separate.
Just the same, artistic value and monetary value are separate because a person who judges a statue on where it came from on the periodic table is a capitalist, not an artist.

>>19424773
>capitalist
materialist would be a better word

>>19424773
kek. look up metaphor retard.

>>19424773
I wasn't talking about monetary value, but our understanding of artistic value. If you replace the original perfectly, you can hijack the value narratives about da vinci and the painting's long history of fame. However, value itself is still based in the legend of the mona lisa, not in aesthetics or anything revelatory, immediate, or objectively measurable about the actual painting. If you present it alongside other similar paintings to an erudite but culturally isolated caveman, he would marvel at the whole lineup and see nothing special about ML, though the others are totally anonymous pieces. OP author would approve of this and consider it the only critique that matters, but it's clearly very limited.

>>19424815
Mona Lisa is shit on it's own.
It is only worth something in the context of the rest of Da Vinci's work and of his life. The connection to those things are not lost by reproducing it. The appearance of it is attached to his name.

It would not be akin to showing a culturally isolated caveman a line up of similar images. The observer would be aware that it is the Mona Lisa, despite not being the original it is the same thing artistically.

Legacy of a physical object(the original painting itself) has nothing to do with art, as OP indirectly would imply. I believe that is correct, and the value of the painting's legacy should be attributed as historical value not artistic value. I see no reason to hesitate to make that separation as there is a clear line.

>>19424864
>I see no reason to hesitate to make that separation
you won't hesitate adopting a definition that says mona lisa isn't great art and isn't artistically important? You think there's a clear line between "the past" and art itself? To me, that requires mental gymnastics.

>>19424791
Oh, I didn't think about it being a metaphor. It didn't cross my mind because he's talking about art and mentions sculptures(an art form). I suppose if I was over analyzing OP that would be a possible interpretation.

That's a rather tryhard way of thinking though.

>>19424888
Mona Lisa is art. It's shit on its own.
Da Vinci is a part of his art. He is a complex character that he build upon a foundation. The name of Da Vinci is not lost through reproduction and so the reproduction maintains its artistic worth, which exists.

>>19424902
ML has benefitted from favorable coverage, da vinci's name, and a million other factors to become bigger than Jesus and a dominant motif that influenced a million masterpieces. That's part of the art too. You can debate it or dislike it, (capeshit/brands = mythology comes to mind, or first blxck trxns wxmxn to write a book) but purging it from the idea of art is far from simple. OP's statements are clinical, unemotional, strident. I fail to see how they represent anything other than a step back.

Here is more context since people are having a hard time getting the meaning of material/subject and form

>>19424960

>>19424963

>>19424960
Keep going, you haven't gotten to the part where he differs from us.

>>19424945
The idea is not to expand the meaning of an abstract term like art, the goal is to shrink abstractions and promote clarity. If a distinct line can be drawn, then it should be.

The legacy of the original object and the idea that it was touched by the original creator have to do with just that, a legacy. That value is being derived from history. That value cannot be diminished, although it can be lost if the piece is destroyed.

The value of Da Vinci and his work from an artistic standpoint is abstract and debatable. Some people would say he is entirely shit and worth nothing. Artistic worth depends on the observer, what they perceive and what they know.
...
I am going to bed. Nighttime makes me hyperactive and now it's morning lol.

>>19424960
>>19424963
>>19424966
>materials don't have structure
the same perfection and symmetry seen in great literature is present in the existence and the experience of real niggas. Therefore to vest artistic quality in a depiction of real niggas is not inherently to focus on "mere content" -- there can by synergy of structure and concept, as in the depiction of a profound experience. Once again, there's no reason to place a wedge between the two except (as the author readily admits) contrarianism.

>>19424998
>the goal is to shrink abstractions and promote clarity.
I wish you could expand on this, OP is absolutely fucking useless as you discovered in two posts.

>>19424960
>material: dramatic action, pathological character of person, exotic slavic souls
So he is referring to the subject material.
Still, it can be taken either way and the message is the same, hence why the analogy works.
My interpretation made sense with the context I was given.

ALRIGHT to bed for real. fuck!

>>19418227
I don't actually care about the opinions of others regarding art.

>>19425035
fortunately it's /lit/, thread isn't going anywhere

OP probably sundowning, we can pick this up tomorrow

>>19425017
>OP is absolutely fucking useless
go to bed

>>19425064
having myself a little chuckle that >>19420389 turned out true

>>19425085
not OP. you're arguing that DaVinci was bad and you were wrong from the beginning.

>>19425114
every word wrong, nice. it's like dubs, linguistically

>>19425117
>anime samefag
you will never understand aesthetics

I never realized how dumb lit is.

>>19426049
don't feel bad, buddy. Recognizing it is the first step to improving.

>>19426128
>>19425085
You can lead a horse to water

>>19418227
This is a retarded position. He gives no reason why subject must stand in a subordinate relation to form (beyond only calling such a reader a philistine). Indeed his own inability to show that form and material are properly separable is also a problem. E.g. would an ekphrasis in a narrative epic be the same as an ekphrasis in a letter or as a titulus? Formally they could all be the same but the subject matter provided by narrative (or lack thereof) motives for its use cannot be thrown away in favor at marveling solely at the rhetorical prowess of an author. In fact, I would argue his position betrays a philistine inability to synthesize form with subject. They each inform each other and as a synthesis inform the aesthetic experience (and merit if we are to use such a dusty notion) of a work.

>>19425133
">anime samefag"
Anon, I went to bed. I believe I understand what should_ be judged as a piece's aesthetic in regards to the text being shared. I'm copying beliefs and attempting to follow and justify their pattern. In truth I am a weeb, I don't care about aesthetics, all I care about are milkers and age. I'm exercising my brain for the sake of retaining IQ points, I would never bother reading something like this otherwise.

>>19424966
Density is not always a good thing though. If all I want is an interesting event or character type to play with, Dostoevski's books are tedious.
Not that I'm saying he's wrong about form being what should be looked at by a critic or writer as the artistic value, but from a reader who is a writer's perspective stories that have adventure after adventure in rapid, nonsensical procession can also be worth a great deal in an informational sense. We were also talking about historical value. Those values are not lesser. "Incompatible readers" would be a better word than unqualified because it's not certain that they cannot understand the worth of your piece, it is that they are looking for a different value.
I don't believe that an author or critic's point of view should look down upon the "uninitiated reader" but rather they should be considered alongside each other as a means of determining why and how a novel carries value.

mm It's like saying a notebook full of notes from some soldier or thinker has no worth because there is only a brief description of the subject. But if I were looking for inspiration, it very well could be worth much more than a Dostoevski book and I would thus rate it highly. So to some extent I think the latter half of his opinion piece is sucking his dick a bit, acting like density and form comes before all elements of a work...
Even in cutting away what artistic value means, which is important, it is not the only value that matters. That wouldn't make sense and would be a total cope.

>>19426623
Tell me about it...
>>19418653
>skillful use of concepts
>>19418693
>durr stop saying material
>>19419358
>symbolism, meaning, processes
>>19420064
>durr stop saying material
>>19420548
>quote literally from OP's quote
>>19420572
>durr stop saying material
>>19421936
>no clear line between structure and circumstances of creation
>>19422233
>durr stop saying material

I could go on, it's a whole thread of this. I'm gonna need you to get some new material.

>>19427610
go back

>>19428430
>SKRRRT!
>op getting molested as a 9 year old
>whoa, not THAT far back!
>*rewinding noises*
>op drooling, corpulent, surrounded by empty duster cans
>trying to type, every keystroke is like breathing mud
>is . . . he . . . . . . r-i-g-h-t-? . . . . captcha . . . post . . . .
>exhausted from he effort, he nods off
>yep, that's me. Ever wonder how this thread came about? It's a long story.

>19428481
Can faggots stop ruining the board.

>>19428826
the only reason to keep making brief little responses is to bait me, or datamine if you're a bot. Luckily for both of us, I want to connect with people on /lit/. Isn't this fun!

>>19428850
>>19424345

>>19418227
I can already tell it's Nabokov by his use of the Philistine

>>19428914
>>19424345

>>19427610

Bump

>>19426964
>I would never bother reading something like this

>>19418271
>>19418531
>>19423908
Explain why he's wrong?

>>19418454
when i read moby dick

>>19418227
He's wrong and he knew he was wrong, thinking he's right requires that you be mentally ill.

>>19423676
i always thought when i was younger that it's inevitable that eventually creativity will run out and people would exhaust themes, stories and so on until everything will be a rehash of something someone has made before

>>19418227
I love how /lit/ thinks they're smarter than one of the best literature theorists and philosophers ever.
Plus they don't even know who he is.

>>19432843
are you retarded?

>>19431214
The material of Mona Lisa would be her nationality, pose, clothing, etc.it has nothing to do with it being a canvas, woodcut, or napkin. That is the format, or technical presentation.
The material in a painting has, by necessity, a different character than writing. The same things are not possible, and certain subjects or forms may not be elevated to the same degree. There could even be a danger in certain subjects or 'materials' being used within a medium. For instance, Goethe comments on the Greek goddesses, how in statue they are never seen giving birth, or rarely even with child. "it would demean their divine majesty." However this is welcome in the literature,and in some ways central.
In literature there is always movement, towards an end or the beginning - and through the lie. This is as true of tragedy as it was in the theogony. And in distance from the gods there may even be a superior majesty, something greater than beauty. This is an important consideration given that modern literature intends to be autoptic rather than synoptic, it invokes realism against the lie of the Muses.
In a similar way, but through different means, the statue must retain a sense of movement and direction. it must form dominion, and thus is not in any way composed in the technical materials alone, nor even placement - it is also a ward, a guide like the old monstrous images along forest paths. without this, the statue is like the creation of Pygmalion, or Pseudologos. This is seen most prominently in the contest of realism, which still contain some aspect of the apotropaic symbols (like a Medusa pediment, Aegis, or simply the saying "Know Thyself").
And then of course in the very origins of statue, as Laelaps and the eternal fox, or the living creations of Daedalus. And the creation of Aletheia herself. The statue without feet is an unreality, living death.

>>19432874
Get new material.

>>19433000
huh?

>>19432989
>The material of
it's not about material, retard. You don't get it.

>>19432989
Plato may be correct however in that the highest forms are accessible in all mediums. But not the lowest, which is part of the danger of material, especially in literature. And I think this is what the author is getting at.
Is there anything like an Oval Portrait in literature? it seems to only be in fairy tales. In any case, the hidden or mystery book that is a recurring theme/trope in contemporary literature serves the opposite function. One has a much more difficult time recognising that they are being pulled into the death of a book.

>>19433022
Ok so what's it about?

>>19433034
I don't have to explain myself to any pleb. Suffice to say that you don't get it.

>>19433037
Ok tranny.

I think it's a very idealized academic take on a subject that is very easy to explain. The reason art has value is because the bourgeoisie use it as status symbols and trade artworks between themselves for high sums of money, money which in itself is evidence of status. Everyone wants art to mean more than this, but it really doesn't.

>>19433080
Art existed before the bourgeoisie and capitalism. So you've fallen into the historian's fallacy.

>>19433149
no, it didn't.

>>19418227
Can't the ideas expressed by the poem have an aesthetic excellence in the complex unity of their parts which enhances the beauty of the poem's form?

who wrote this, op?

>>19433149
Religious art existed before that then yes, but not art as we know it now. Art being traded as commodities in a market isn't comparable to a patron like the Catholic Church petitioning a ceiling painting that is supposed to last forever.

>>19433183
Certainly. This internal harmony is even necessary. But one of the great lessons of Greek aesthetics is that this simple harmony will form naturally from the higher, and will be a vital form. Otherwise, the aesthetic shell can be a lie or trick, as with the vessel of Pandora, or Pseudologos who has clay feet.

It was said of Hölderlin's madness that he could still create perfect technical poems, beautiful internally but lacking any higher content. Even an original Gothic church, as Goethe points out, can be empty formalism which severely weakens its internal beauty and harmony. What is most important in art is that it harmonise with the higher laws, and where this happens naturally, or eruptively, there is often greater strength than in the beautiful, than that with a clear purpose or value. The technical perfection of art can also be its end, one has become separate from art, which is the disaster of l'art pour l'art.

Here the primitive sounds of an isolated tribe or even the mass beheading rituals of the Aztecs are of a higher order than formalistic art which displays a shell of beauty.

>>19433186
Ortega y Gasset.

>>19433291
>The technical perfection of art can also be its end, one has become separate from art, which is the disaster of l'art pour l'art.
What is so disastrous in modern art is the cult of the new, or experimentation, movements replacing form. Blind association and clever tricks take the place of depth, as in Ulysses. And at this point art even creates a barrier for itself, adding to the mess of the abyss, like a wall so that no one can any longer see the essential.

And a helpful quote along the same lines
"The hummingbird kissing the hibiscus blossom and the one gnawed on by worms in the grey dust are both equally far from hidden beauty; they are the painter's motifs, not his goal. We sense in his painting the golden explosions of the worm."

>>19433291
>>19433356
>large-scale natural and social phenomena = art
>deliberate human works = not art
wow, this is deep.

>>19433291
>>19433314
pure shit, the word art is misused here. You can just say beauty instead. Any object can be made beautiful, any masterpiece can be deprived of its profundity, like the gothic church.

>>19433384
Yeah a discord tranny knows more than Goethe about aesthetics.

>>19433384
What is art?

>>19433384
>Any object can be made beautiful
Wrong.

>>19433387
>appeal to authority for the 200th time
idiot
>>19433408
Name one.

>>19433387
Not even disagreeing with Goethe, you're just misusing him.

>>19418227
Pre-renaissance the work of art was valued by its material. It's an ever-changing system whereby art functions in accordance to its role in a grander metaphysics. So yes he's right for now but also wrong generally. Minus points for not actually referencing any art (as most wanky theory neglects to do)

>>19433396
If it shares a definition with beauty, you have a big problem.

>>19433314
"movements" ceased to be a thing after minimalism 70 years ago

Also a warning if your response to recent art becomes defensive and cranky it's probably because your model of art has become irrelevant and less universal than you thought

>>19433291
Ah yes the Greek aesthetics such as that of Plato

>>19433527
For you.

>>19433547

>>19433487
How?

>>19433527
It literally argues against art as beauty retard.

>>19433600
what are you talking about? Try to follow along shithead.

>>19433537
Yes? You clearly don't read at all.

>>19433610
>30 posters
>almost all a tranny fascist
How many posts in this thread are (You)?

>>19433479
Solipsism is just appeal to schizo authority.

>>19433531
What's your point? What you said has nothing to do with the post.

>>19433595
I'm not disagreeing with him because I said a masterpiece can be stripped of its profundity, which echoes Goethe's sentiment that a technically perfect church can be mere formalism, a technical masterpiece that lacks higher meaning.

His point strengthens mine, and you're misusing him by taking his statement to mean that form and meaning are separable. He was lamenting the existence of empty masterworks, not refuting art as we know it. In your formulation, if aztec sacrifices (metaphor) were occurring in said church, it would become art. Maybe some equivalent occurred that's inaccessible to us, such as the church's construction.

>>19433600
we're not talking about material beauty you infant.

>>19433626
what?

>>19433635
Point to the solipsism then like I pointed directly at your appeal to authority.

>>19433672
Has nothing to do with meaning. You've never read Goethe.

>>19433681
Just go back to your discord you haven't contributed a single thing

>>19433672
>In your formulation, if aztec sacrifices (metaphor) were occurring in said church, it would become art.
God damn you're stupid.

>>19433692
You can't even speak English.

>>19433696
>>19433705
seethe, cope, and die late. If I were wrong, you would be able to show it.

>>19433689
Authority is based.
>Plato
>Goethe
>Hesiod
>Homer
>Pindar
>Hölderlin
>Herder
>Jünger
>Tocqueville
>Ortega
or
>discord tranny who doesn't read
Tough choice.

>>19433715
None of them are actually here, just you. The fact that you're willing to argue this point reveals the depths of your stupidity and autism.

>>19433711
>>19433672
If there is no profundity to begin with then it can't be stripped of it.
I didn't say anything about anything that would suggest Aztecs in a church would make it beautiful. That makes no sense and you are dumb for thinking it.
And here >>19432989
I made clear that there is something higher than beauty in art, which is what the argument concerning the Aztecs depends on. So your comment is a non sequitur and proves you can't read.

From the beginning you've done nothing but try to derail. So fuck off, it won't work.

>>19433581
>spiderman and anime
That's cringe bro.

>>19433527
Just post what beauty and art are. You'll prove him wrong and /thread

Art... is an EXPLOSION!

>>19433737
>Here the primitive sounds of an isolated tribe or even the mass beheading rituals of the Aztecs are of a higher order than formalistic art which displays a shell of beauty.
You refer to formalism, or empty aesthetic, as a "shell of beauty" indicating the existence of something beautiful in this higher order. So we're not talking about physical beauty, but structural beauty. The formal shell of the church might be elevated to art by the "aztec beheading" of its construction and the joy of the people in its early years.

It's useless to argue that art is simply "moving" or ineffable and not related to any form of the word beauty, so move on from that.

I want to return to something you said earlier. >>19433626
>30 posters
>How many posts in this thread are (You)?

Almost as many as (you). However if you read the thread, you will see one of us has either ignored or been dismissive of 29 others. This healthy chat is a vast improvement on what you tried to put us through, to keep people from discussing your prompt in their own words. I should have put fake attributions on my posts to get your attention, because they represent the hard work of leading you by the god damn nose into polite conversation and engagement with the topic.

>>19433757
Beauty is the thing of desire, primordial and real.
Art is the object of that thing, wrought by people.

>>19433854
Yeah calling people midwits and being passive aggressive the whole time shows how polite you are. Plus your samefagging...
>>19419056
>>19419153
>>19419196
Another good one
>>19419191
And one of the first posts
>>19418454

Delusional tranny.

>>19433880
So if it is desired it is beautiful. Dumb midwit take.
Art is an object of that beauty. And you literally cried earlier for equating art and beauty.
Pure shit. The word art isn't at all understood here.

>>19434685
yoooo this dude is a literal npc. First it's cut up bits of other people's opinions, now it's bits of other posts mixed together. Not one original idea in the lot. I accept your concession, cuck.

>>19418227
that's objectively correct so what even do we need a thread for

>>19418227
>Reductionism is correct when it reduces down to what I am interested in

>>19435027
How is it reductionism?