/lit/ - Literature

>>22142537
Gombrich, Art and Illusion

>>22142537
the allure of art as in sculpture/painting is almost impossible to write about in a way that is universal enough to answer what the "purpose" is imo. the more you know about a work the more you can connect it to something bigger than the work, its purpose can be literally anything from the artists perspective and mean absolutely nothing to the viewer.

the value in it for me is the fact it is so universal its hard to put words to - you can feel the purpose and value in a self portrait of Van Gogh even if you know nothing about him, you might get even more out of it that way. but if you read his letters or more about him, you'll get something different out of it. even though most people despise "modern" art (as if thats even a defendable position), the posterboys/girls for social media and art still produce works of purpose and value. look into some of the essays about the 'of false beaches and butter money' collection by chloe wise if you want a literal discussion of the value of commentary on something that wasn't touched on in older periods of art.

if you find an artist you like read more about a piece and go from there, i find it better to read about an artist/group/time period rather than art as a whole which is harder to describe

>>22142537
Art is divine.

I realize the OP is a picture of paintings and sculptures, but I meant to include poetry, novels, TV shows, etc., as well. Actually, fine art is perhaps the least interesting art form for purposes of the discussion

If I could get everyone on this board to read just one book it would be this.

>>22142711
describe it

>>22142675
fine art is less interesting for the purposes of discussion than TV shows?

>>22142886
generally, yes. and with respect to the particular topic of why something is made/enjoyed, definitely.

>>22142537
Art to me is the human mind experimenting with intelligence and emotions by combining them to express what it observes and feels around it (and within itself), in visual and auditory symbolic representations, because humans are creatures who like symbols and symbolism. It's how we give tangible and sensory meaning and form to acts, events, achievements, thoughts and emotions.

>>22142886
Taking the statement generously, fine art creates a sensation almost too personal to be shared. Easier to talk about Star Wars or some banal shit than try to enjoy Wagner with even the rare king among retards whose aesthetic appreciation is still downhill of Ride of the Valkyries in Apocalypse Now.

>>22142934
holy..

>>22142914
>generally, yes.
All you are really talking about is your own lack of discernment. Centuries of good scholarship have been written on individual pieces of fine art. How much do you think there is to be said about True Detective or whatever your favourite show is beyond a handful of reddit echo chamber regurgitations?
>>22142949
>fine art creates a sensation almost too personal to be shared
I would argue that we simply lack the ability to articulate these things well enough. Scientism has rendered rhetoric culturally taboo along with anything that can possibly be construed as remotely elitist.

>>22143007
>How much do you think there is to be said about True Detective or whatever your favourite show is beyond a handful of reddit echo chamber regurgitations?

what are you talking about. im not interested in discussing individual "pieces" of anything.

>>22142733
reactionary ideological polemic that Art as a concept and invention was an error that distracts us from salvation

>>22143017
You're a retarded faggot and deserve to be incinerated along with all trace of your existence.

>>22142914
please tell me you are joking with this, you seriously believe a discussion about why the average tv show is made/enjoyed is more interesting than the same about an artwork?

>>22143034
you're much dumber than me

>>22143028
Sounds fucking gay and beta

>>22143045
that's right

>>22143051
is it just a hatred of all fine art for some retarded reason or is it a lack of knowledge about it? genuine question.

>>22143058
the premise doesnt have to do with merit

>22143046
Pic related
>>22143058
He's just a retarded faggot due for incineration. Don't engage.

>>22142537
>purpose(s) and value of art?
hmm I tend not to read texts devoted to those big picture philosophical questions because usually they're either targeted to children or they're one crank's self-devised system for evaluation - which can be interesting in right hands like Tom Wolfe skepticism of the 60s and modern art.

Aristotle's 'Poetics' is entirely devoted to interrogating the Tragic form and an exemplary seminal work of literary criticism for it's profundity and conciseness replete with examples. Get one with a commentary and I bet it'll hook you and give you a great foundation for most every art theory you'll encounter

I've read some post-modernism essay collections (art not politics) whose mission was to not just pick up your torch of inquiry but find the way through so you get not just navel gazing but a dialectic which you can learn much from though some of those debates are a bit antiquated

Cinema studies texts are great too because there was a point where theorist were trying to construct arguments deriving a legitimacy of cinema as an artistic form. It's a good inroad to lots of easy to access but deep and old discourses on what constitues art and subject vs form and given it's temporal length metaphysic and psychology slip in

Or just plain ole fashion 'literary criticism' classics. Chandler on the detective novel, or Sontag 'Against Interpretation'

>>22143092
what do you think of Bakhtin? the novel as a sort of linguistic solvent

>>22143124
are you speaking of 'Discourse in the Novel'?
looking at it rn. so 'Dialogic' is basically Saussure and Chomskyesque linguistic-relativism and constructed meaning, now he's going to make a point on how style is difference or 'heteroglossia' born of dialogic and this was, of the time, inadequately accounted for or addressed by analytical methods.

Should be interesting how he compares these implications between poetry and the novel. Will read on

>>22143206
I don't exactly remember, but yeah—the collection of those 4 essays that includes 'discourse'

>>22142537
I think art os the communication of one person to another through a medium. I also think pic related gets at an idea of why we like art so much.

>>22142537
Civilisation by Kenneth Clark is pretty good. The birth of tragedy is also a great one for art's overall purpose (or life's purpose as art).

>>22143518
a flyer for an AA meeting is communication through a medium

>>22143577
been awhile since I've read birth of tragedy, maybe I'll give it another look

>>22142914
What a dumb fucking opinion, mr. redditor.

>>22143577
The words Art and Craft basically have the same root meaning, which is roughly the same as Skill and Power. Whatever a man does by design and intention is art of some kind. The most basic and simple end of art is mere sense pleasure. The highest end of art is the realization of truth. As some set of practices or approaches tend toward that highest end, we call them high arts. As some set of practices and works approach the baser end, they tend to have their own name, related to the kind of end they produce. An object that is a result of a high art, having little else to compare with it except others if its kind, is usually just called a work of art. And I’m common use this easily gets shortened simply to art. So really, art is just a skillfully made object of any kind, but especially those objects which are made for the realization of truth.

>>22143602
it's not really an opinion. when trying to make generalization about why people like/make art, it makes sense to discuss forms of art that more people consume, generally. I'm not that familiar with reddit, but from what I understand, fine art is extremely reddit. you can't get more middlebrow than a new exhibition in the Guggenheim with a line of New Yorker readers queued up outside

>>22143612
I like this

>>22143630
so tv shows are less reddit than fine art? jesus

>>22143654
you can't read

>>22143630
Another banal and inane opinion, mr. redditor

>>22142537
Art is a personal affair we can sometimes recognize in others, like spirituality we might acknowledge the wizeness of those who take the path but to know it is to tread that path on our own.

>>22143809
is that a satisfactory answer for you?

>>22143028
Oh so it's just dull puritanical nonsense? Grim

>>22145364
No that anon has no idea what he’s talking about, Barzun wasn’t even Christian.

>>22142537
Art is whatever the elite can force on the non-elites as such. It is the crystallization of a ruling group's ideology.

>>22142537
I don't think you're going to find the answers you're looking for in a book. Trying to quantify the "value" of "art" in vacuum is a fool's errand; and still, if you're doing that you're kind of missing the point.

>>22146665
That depends what "art" you're observing/creating

>>22146665
That's morality

>>22146695
Morality, the idea of art, and power are synonyms for the same thing.

>>22146628
Puritanical doesn't mean Christian.

>>22146715
Elaborate, that's an interesting position. I can see morality and art being analogous, but I don't agree that they are synonyms for one another.

>>22146686
who said anything about quantify

>>22146728
Of course, it seems puritanical to the idolater, that's Barzun's entire point. And that's what ruined fine art. I don't know why that anon was shilling the book anyway, nobody here will read it.

>>22142537
Why Beauty Matters, a documentary by Roger Scruton.

>>22148204
lol. lmao even

>>22142537

>what is art
Communciation of emotional experience.
>why do people make and like it
Liberation from the tyranny of the useful.

Has anyone read Tolstoi's "What is Art" ? I found his argument very compelling, particularly regarding french poets and late romantic music.

>>22149203
what is his argument

>>22142537
>>22142547
Art is output from AI.
2021 was the first time art was created.
We simply taught AI the basics.

>>22142537
>Pablo Picasso
He was the definition of a gigachad.

>>22149628
'Artificial Intelligence is devoid of intelligence because it is devoid of artifice'

>>22142537
read shklovski

>>22142537
Just go straight to Hegel
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-aesthetics/

>>22142537
>The old world, speaking strictly, knew but one poet, and named him "Homeros." The Greek word "Poietes," which [138] the Latins—unable to translate it—reproduced as" Poeta," recurs most naïvely among the Provençals as "Trouvère," and suggested to our Middle-high Germans the term of "Finder," Gottfried von Strassburg calling the poet of Parzival a "Finder wilder Märe" (" finder of strange tales "). That "poietes "—of whom Plato averred that he had found for the Greeks their gods—would seem to have been preceded by the "Seer," much as the vision of that ecstatic shewed to Dante the way through Hell and Heaven. But the prodigy of the Greeks' sole poet—"the"—seems to have been that he was seer and poet in one; wherefore also they represented him as blind, like Tiresias. Whom the gods meant to see no semblance, but the very essence of the world, they sealed his eyes; that he might open to the sight of mortals that truth which, seated in Plato's figurative cavern with their backs turned outwards, they theretofore could see in nothing but the shadows cast by Show, This poet, as "seer," saw not the actual (das Wirkliche), but the true (das Wahrhaftige), sublime above all actuality; and the fact of his being able to relate it so faithfully to hearkening men that to them it seemed as clear and tangible as anything their hands had ever seized—this turned the Seer to a Poet. Was he "Artist" also?
>We came to the conclusion that all Greek genius was but an artistic re-editing of Homer, whilst in Homer himself we refused to recognise the artist. Yet Homer knew the "Aoidos" (4) nay, he himself perhaps was "singer" also?—To the sound of heroic songs the chorus of youths approached the mazes of the "imitative" dance. We know the choral chants to the priestly ceremonies, the dithyrambic choral dances of the Dionysian rites. What [141] there was inspiration of the blind seer, becomes here the intoxication of the open-eyed ecstatic, before whose reeling gaze the actuality of Semblance dissolves to godlike twilight. Was the "musician" artist? I rather think he made all Art, and became its earliest lawgiver.
For a comprehensive explanation of Art, what it is, what it means, and how it came to be, read Wagner.

anyone ever read Arthur Danto?

There is a suggestion about a book for children: https://lingvakids.ru/luchshie-detskie-knigi-na-anglijskom-dlya-detej-3-56-let/?ysclid=lixg6vgwxc614978022 this is a very good activity for kids books my children enjoyed reading these books

>>22142537
Art is an embellished image of reality that can offer a lens.

>>22143630
You type like a faggot zoomer who wants to act smart and contrarian.

>>22143630
you're simple

>>22149203
Dude is a tard who had literal slaves chasing away birds from his massive property that he inherited, so that they don't chirp while he's resting from sitting around all day.

>>22143630
.

>>22142711
Reading it now, thanks anon