/lit/ - Literature

>>4251767

>>4251768

>>4251772

>>4251775

>>4251779

>>4251781

>>4251784

>>4251785

>>4251786

>>4251789

>>4251795

>>4251798

>>4251799

is The Story of Art the place for an art pleb to start?

>>4251802

Are and how are we considering gifs, and, if so, are they considered distinct from vines?

Stemming from the vines question, does still art still qualify as art within the purview of art in motion? Is not the lack of motion motion within the definition of not-motion, to rape a term from the Zen Buddhist school?

Is the abject fucktard who made this thread going to continue to post picture that make no fucking sense to people who read books because they weren't born with OP's special brand of autism that leaps to the conclusion that the statement "A picture is worth a thousand words" means everyone all the time is possessed of a thousand words every time their eyes are damned to see something resembling a picture?

Or did they just graduate from Hogwarts and go on to that magical wizard college where a random assortment of images is more than just a random assortment of images no one fucking understands but you and the other wizards and witches?

>>4251807

>>4251805

but aren't we all art plebs?

>>4251809
You've become a fool to yourself.

>>4251809

perhaps the autism does not reside in you, but you in the autism

>>4251811

>>4251818

>>4251811
I posit that you are more of a visual art pleb than anyone on /lit/ because you thought that multilingual study of various lingual scripts would culminate in a psychotic blending of all visual perception of typography into your brand of psychotic blending of all visual stimuli.

It was a very fun and colorful tour, but I'm sorry. Your insanity delves into a depth we dare not follow.

>>4251821

>>4251826

you don't strike me as an educated man, or you would know how silly your statements--even when chastened of their jargon--really are.

you ought to leave before further embarrassments are had.

Lots of bad art ITT.

>>4251830

Betis, please stop.

>>4251831

well, what divides good from bad art?

>>4251836

ok.

i'm confused why you care so much, but i'll stop.

>>4251818
Alt-lit is a very adorable form of literature. It suggests that visual aesthetics are somehow crucial to literary form because various forms of formatting exist on the internet.

When you insist that these various forms of computer code are a necessary divergence that must always exist in every form of expression and decide that a random stream of visual art on the Literature board of 4chan is providing anything more than white noise or a potentiation to psychosis, you have not only crossed a line, but a precipice you must beg to be pulled back from.

In kinder times of Western society, apologetic rescue efforts from this precipice would have been afforded. You were unfortunate enough to dance on the edge under an intoxicating cocktail in an era where others are only capable of admitting that you should have known better.

>>4251840
>i'm confused why you care so much

Insisting a picture is worth a thousand words doesn't mean you're posting a thousand words every time you post a picture. It was cute of you to pull this shit in the wee hours of the morning according the the Eastern Seaboard, but a lot of people come to /lit/ for advice on words. A dump of visual art is entirely fucking off topic unless you can empirically prove that every picture you posted contains letters or icons from any alphabet.

>>4251838
Good art looks good and bad art looks bad.

>>4251854
Are you insisting that there's a universal and immediate threshold of beauty and that the grotesque can never be beautiful, whether by succession into beauty or unto its own ends?

>>4251867
I'm saying that a line painted across a canvas by some French dipshit from the early 20th century is not art.

>>4251844

yes yes, we've all ready benjamin, lyotard, baudrillard, etc etc etc

all is simulacrum and the like, etc.

death will come to you as it will come to me--is basically the endgame of whatever lame debate you are trying to open here.

>>4251850

you're a horrible obnoxious person who takes things way too goddamn seriously:

1. my thought was that /lit was more of a cultural center; where other boards cater to music, TV, etc, not much in the way of cultured art

2. you're just downright fucking stupid for interpreting my question in the manner you did. what i had in mind: wittgenstein; problems discussed by brian garsten insofar as he equates convincing with speaking/writing (argumentation) and persuading with image-showing, e.g. when we fail to convince we must persuade--rousseau has a similar statement qua his idea of the lawgiver, and this was a major thematic in 18th century english theories of the sublime (see: alison, kames, addison, reynolds, shaftesbury, and especially burke) up through german romanticism (kant, hegel, novalis and shlegel all have strong statements on this). it's a broad platitudinal question that opens on a number of intellectual fronts--all with just some random selected art. you really do need to take a moment, stand back from your wretched life, and reassess your standards of importance...

3. why you demand that i somehow need to develop a semiotic argument "empirically proving that every picture you posted contains letters or icons from any alphabet" is utterly beyond me, and once again proves what a piece of shit thinker you are. perhaps the subject of my question pertained to strictly the breakdown of this limit, e.g. where our sense of language breaks down at a given threshold of "sheer perception"--montaigne talks about an "ancient painter" who, capturing the funeral of Iphigenia, was unable to capture in language the true--but stoic--sorrow of the father; as such, he protrays the father with "face covered"--as to denote the impossibility of translating such sorrow into a speakable, writable text--THESE are the questions are more interested in, you dumb fuck

>>4251850

but what truly fascinates me is this: the palpable sense that you feel entitled to police /lit, ensuring the boar is forever free of the great scourge of art--of the 15+pages of shitty threads, you couldn't permit a single art one?

see, you are a trope: the kind of person who somehow comments in threads they see as stupid/pointless and, in so doing, always fail to see the undercutting irony. the question remains--and i ask it in absolute earnest: why do you care so much?

the reasons you gave in this post are stupid and invalid. i could say:

to put it lockean terms: what injury does this thread trespass upon your individual autonomy?

or, to put it in kantian terms: could you legislate every man to act as you do?

or, to put in habermasian terms: is the principle you are acting on a moral, rather than ethical, principle? what are your validity claims? can we elect this to a universal principle (U)?

etc etc etc--and no matter who you turn to, you are left with the stunning fact that nothing about the way you operate is reasonable or justifiable in any robust sense, and that you are fundamentally and truly a worthless douchebag. i would go so far to say that you are an exemplar of /lit's pollution; heed the obvious, simple advice: if you don't like a thread, just don't fucking post in it.

>>4251873
>as to denote the impossibility of translating such sorrow into a speakable, writable text--THESE are the questions are more interested in, you dumb fuck

As dumb a fuck as I may be, I still posit that you're an abject fucking dipshit for thinking /lit/ was the board where everyone would gather around for a circlejerk over you slapping a paint-crusted cock in the mud and screaming I GOT ART I GOT ART I GOT ART.

We seem like more of cultural center? No shit, Sherlock, 4chan cumswaps letters around like that shit's going out of style. Leave it to the board named after a desire to intelligently approach letters to make the rest of them look like dipshits.

The autistic projection you have to deal with is that you thought anyone around here gave enough of a shit about a random dump of paintings to spark a grassroots movement ending with everyone on /lit/ gathering around this thread to chant in a monotone chorus GOLD STAR YOU GOLD STAR YOU SHOWED US ALL GOLD STAR YOU.

No one here will ever give a more of a shit about your Stendhal disease beyond your ability to articulate it verbally. THESE PICTURES MADE ME FEEEEEEEEL might get whatever you think passes for a positive response other places on 4chan, but /lit/ was sick of your shit before you even managed to form it into a cohesive sentence.

>>4251895

you strike me as a sad individual--i'm seeing now that what lies behind your stupidity is really insecurity. the fact that you so heavily interpreted my thread that way--and then went so far to comment, and to continue to comment, etc--in such a evidently worthless thread seems to betray your own participation in the corrosion of /lit, but, again, you for some reason fail to grasp this fundamental irony. IN ANY CASE, and barring the fact that your determination to personally regulate this board per my questions in >>4251893 is nothing short of medically noteworthy, you ought to know that this thread was created like most threads: in the event that, anyone who just wanted to see some random art as a supplement to their regular /lit browsing, could do so; the fact that you think i was expecting the receive personal acknowledgment/gratification is truly an obscene projection on your part--one that, again, bespeaks your own terrifying littleness

>>4251893
>i would go so far to say that you are an exemplar of /lit's pollution; heed the obvious, simple advice: if you don't like a thread, just don't fucking post in it.

I would go even farther and say that /lit/ doesn't mull over the words it chooses to post for the sake of lubricating your cock for yet another fap session. We bite our tongues, swish the blood around in our mouths and swallow it because we know no matter how it dribbles out of our mouths, down our arms, across our wrists and onto our keyboards, you're only capable of seeing it as masturbatory lubricant that spontaneously appeared on your fingertips.

As much as I am physically repulsed by the notion of tangentially insisting that a sperglord like you is capable of having sex with a woman who can bear children in the vicinity of /lit/, you came to the wrong neighborhood, motherfucker.

Fucking hell shut up all of you.

>>4251910
>We bite our tongues, swish the blood around in our mouths and swallow it because we know no matter how it dribbles out of our mouths, down our arms, across our wrists and onto our keyboards, you're only capable of seeing it as masturbatory lubricant that spontaneously appeared on your fingertips.

this is...wow

thank you, thank you, thank you for proving my point. i'm going to sleep; congratulations of making yourself look like a horrendous fool: a true mockery of anything resembling an intelligent, worthwhile human being.

i really hope you're just trolling/dicking around, man, because if you aren't, then there is something really wrong with you.

What about art-film? In a weird coincidence I recently watched "Passion" by Godard then "Carnival in Flanders" by Jacques Feyder.

In Passion its as if you get to walk around in these classic paintings. Its worth watching just to see how paintings would feel translated into film, and not just flatly recorded, but recreated in a way so that space and time get mixed in with colour and light and depth and all that.

Carnival in Flanders is not as radical, but I think its also about film interpreting painting as well. You get an artists (Brueghel's grandson?) doing a portrait of some councillors in that classic aristocratic way emphasising their nobility. But then the story unfolds so as to totally undermine and inverse the image (some pleb chucks beer on it for food measure). I thought it was saying only a story through time and through various perspectives can tell the truth. Film can do this, painting can't.

>>4251914
Keep some bottles of finger paints by your bed, Betis-kun. You might have a dream without pictures and get spooked.

>>4251809
this is a really bad post. like, i wanna puke.gtfo autist; just because you're insecure about your ability to understand art doesnt mean it's bad or that it isnt worth this board's space

>>4251914

that was hectic pros tho.

>>4251910
i agree with the guy that isnt you. you sound stupid. so there. twat

Benis dont get discouraged i think you're cool

Why isn't there an art board yet ?

>>4251951
>>>/ic/

>>4252021
Those guys are gay.

>>4252056
so is /lit/. yet here you are

>>4251951
because it would be a thinly veiled porn board for 'artistic nudes' (most likely kids too).../tv/ isn't about television & film, think of where you are.

>>4251916
yeah I saw Passion too and really loved that part of it, one of Godard's better films

do you know Raul Ruiz? Hypotesis of the stolen painting comes to mind

>>4252021
This is like combining /lit/ and /co/. "Now you guys get along"

"Cezanne took painting as far as it can go" - Robert Bresson

>>4251872
look at this faggot

>>4251767
I'm not sure why I like this one so much.

>>4252445
huehue fag!1!!

>>4252362
Good Lord! What horrible teeth!

>>4251827

>>4253388
Subtle. Very, very subtle.

Good job.

>>4253391
i still enjoy abstract art though

>>4253388
I'll give you 50 grand for it.

>>4253407
i have no idea what's going on but that's not the pic i wanted to post. that's not even on my computer.

>>4253418
Is this Rothko's 'Maybe Its a Window'?

>>4253725
I believe it's referred to as Black on Maroon.

>>4253725
Maybe it's

>>4253725
it's his timeless piece, "i dragged my ass across the canvas"

>>4253753
Get back in the other thread.

>>4253759