/lit/ - Literature

He was basically a National Socialist.

He advocated for an aristocracy, like Schopenhauer before him. A monarchy would also have met with his favor, provided it's king had certain qualities.

>>4302667
>>4302647
He says a lot of things that could be read to imply this..

He also said a lot of things that are weirdly compatible with Marxism. He's a complex thinker. I don't think, however, when he says 'aristocrat', he means the modern, inbred parasite. He means it in the greek sense of the word - the most virtuous.

>>4302647
no he wasnt, he didnt support antisemitism

>>4302667
I have trouble seeing Nietzsche as a monarchist because he seemed to recognize the impossibility of trying to turn back the clock, and monarchy isn't really a viable option anymore, except in the completely impotent form you see in the countries that still have it.

"Whispered to the conservatives. — What was not known formerly, what is known, or might be known, today: a reversion, a return in any sense or degree is simply not possible. We physiologists know that. Yet all priests and moralists have believed the opposite — they wanted to take mankind back, to screw it back, to a former measure of virtue. Morality was always a bed of Procrustes. Even the politicians have aped the preachers of virtue at this point: today too there are still parties whose dream it is that all things might walk backwards like crabs. But no one is free to be a crab. Nothing avails: one must go forward — step by step further into decadence (that is my definition of modern “progress”). One can check this development and thus dam up degeneration, gather it and make it more vehement and sudden: one can do no more."

>>4302647
nope


Herr Nietzsche's ideal system would probably look more like an Ancient Greek oligarchy or Italian medieval oligarchy than NS Germany. With lots of artists and poets too. Also he hated the military. His experience in the army made him hate that life.

>>4302736
Dictatorships are modern monarchies

>>4302647
>
Yeah no he pretty much would have hated national socialism. He fell out with his sister because he thought proto-nazism was retarded. Imagine what he would have thought about the real thing.

>>4302711
>antisemitism
>national socialism
>The same thing.

I fail to understand why people don't like national socialism. With modern technology and trade you wouldn't need to steal land and resources from other nations

I get the feeling a lot of people won't go near it because of it's association with Nazism which is understandable if you are the common man. It is like how a lot of poltards think rights for gays means communism or some kind of Jewish conspiracy.

>>4302770
>it's association with Nazism
And then retard skinhead realizes that 'Nazi' is a contraction of 'national socialist', and goes to a clinic to sign up for community support for his downs syndrome.

>>4302770
Because without its extremes it's just conservative social policy with centre-left economics.

>>4302770
its just another shit bandwagon ideology for the masses, which Nietzsche criticized along with Communism, Socialism and liberalism

free spirits don't hold any political ideologies, especially those which claim to create public good for large numbers of people ie the herd

>>4302231
There is no comprehensive, non-contradictive fleshed out political view to be found in Nietzsche's work. Any other response is wishful thinking, often supported by an agenda.

>>4302826
Without having read this segment, it sounds like he criticizes the idea of *belonging* to an ideology rather than compiling your own solutions and forming an ideology.

>>4302803
>political ideology
>exclusive

Don't be so one track.

>>4302815
Why not that though. That is about as stable as humanity gets.

To the people who say Nietzsche would have hated National Socialism:

Consider duplicity. You don't have to value Hitler's regime by it's proclaimed ideology. Nietzsche wasn't the kind to judge rulers by what they tell to the plebs. He judged them by what he saw in their deeds. Therefore he saw great men in Ceasar and Napoleon, not populists. He also saw them as uniters of Europe, not nationalists. When you look at Hitler, it's not hard how in he would garner praise from Nietzsche regardless of the party ideology or what he told people.

A man with an artists vision, who seizes power, whips a nation into shape and then carves out a vast Empire, starting a new era with new rules and new values, that include hierarchy and a strict yes and no, as well as a reverence for the Ancients? Nietzsche would have been all over that shit. Hitler had all the makings of a Cesare Borgia and more.

>>4302897
Maybe, except Nietzsche hated proto nazis and hated German militarists, its all over his writings. So even though he does have a few good things to say in his writings about military dictators (though how seriously are we to take him when he praises some of these folks is difficult to say), I highly doubt he would have had a positive view of Hitler.

He shits on Germans every chance he gets, and even disliked that he was German, claiming that he was of polish nobility.

>>4302897
>A man with an artists vision

Hitler's art was shit. He didn't mature enough to have a "vision."

>>4303027

yeah uh huh ok

>>4303040
Artist here. He's right. Hitler's art is vapid dribble.

It's hard to say because most of his political statements are critical. Aside from favoring the unification of Europe and an aristocracy of some kind (and even that's somewhat vague and open to interpretation), he doesn't seem to lay out any positive program for society.

>>4303075
>Artist here.

>>4303075

Yeah it wasn't great, but art in the Nietzschean sense is state building.

>>4302742
Monarchies are modern monarchies.

>>4302231
The political system that allows a person like him be individualistic and careless.

As far as I know he never said he liked or advocated any political structure.

/pol/ here. You're describing objectivism, retard.

>>4303163
>/pol/ here. You're describing objectivism, retard.

From what I understand, he wasn't too fond of capitalism, and he didn't define self-interest as narrowly as Ayn Rand. His views are radically different from hers.

>>4303075

Dude, didn't you go on /g/?

>>4302742
Not at all man. Totally different political economies--shit, there's tons of economic variety within "dictatorships". You have powerful, independent socialists on one end and weak, neoliberal capitalist compradors on the other.

>>4302647
He could be considered right-wing because he thought people, cultures and races are not on equal footing. But he was non-nationalistic and inherently not racist. The individual human was what counted, not the group. That's why saying stuff that he was a Nazi is retarded. Nazis were a herd.

>>4302231
Considering Italian fascists where the most inspired by his ideas, I'd say they're closest to what he would have been politically.

>>4303075
Yeah.

Art is meant to be deep and meaningful, like photographs of anuses, faeces in a can, or plastic crucifixes submerged in urine.

Hitler just wasn't deep enough to "get it".

>>4304064
You dont know shit
anuses are very deep

>>4304042
Mussolini was still the Alpha male of a herd. He would never have accepted that.

>>4304066
Oh wow. Sure is /lit/ in here.

>>4304064
I guess they just learned. The logic is simple: if Hitler did all this stuff, what would the Anus artist do if he was rejected ?

>>4302897
I always knew nobody actually fucking reads books anymore but christ, what entitles you to speak about something you so clearly and obviously have not read and do not understand?

Does it make you feel smart to consider yourself an expert? Do you feel as though the commodity and status item of having "read" a highly influential philosopher whom you obviously cannot grasp due to your infantile attention span will garner you the respect of your peers and fix your abysmal self esteem?

Just fucking die, I hate you.

>>4304577
Mussolini was the overman figurehead used to create a cultural hemegony and inspire the masses to greatness, inside the actual party he wasn't actually that powerful and even got voted out of power and jailed later on in the war because he couldn't hold his shit.
Nietzschien as fuck.

>>4302897
Nietzsche was such a silly looking clown.

>>4304064
There are retired old ladies in first year painting courses painting that very image in the top frame right this moment. Lrn2art, you anti-intellectual fucktard.

>>4304602
But what, if anything, was actually wrong with the post you are replying to?

>>4303075
>Artist here

Um, you were saying in a previous thread that you were going to try your luck with art, because you're a horrible writer. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, philistine.

>>4304720
Yet taking photographs of anuses requires great skill, an eye for aesthetics, and an incredibly deep understanding of the universe.

I salute your brilliance, art guru!

The depth of your mind is so amazing to behold. It's hard for a pleb like me to even comprehend the deep meaningful artistic deepness behind anus photos. But I trust your expertise.

>>4304740

Look, you're just another dumb /pol/ack who fell for a shitty strawman macro that's supposed to represent reality.

Just look at the picture you just posted. Both sides are cherry-picked generalizations and misrepresentations, the side you're criticizing is made to look intentionally worse than it is, and the side you subscribe to is made to look much better than it actually was.

I mean, you do know that just about everything on the nazi side is propaganda, right?

>>4304720
>Lrn2art, you anti-intellectual fucktard.
Is it even possible to learn how amazingly artistic anus photographs are without a genius level IQ, as you clearly have?

Alas I am not wise like you, but I am willing to learn. Please, teach me. Educate me on the artistic merits of anus photos, and why they are more deserving of praise than an aesthetically appealing landscape/architecture painting.

>>4304772

Again, shitty cherry-picked misrepresentations.

Why don't you go back to /pol/, where you can discuss how the fact that you're a fat basement dweller is totally the fault of everyone but you yourself

>>4304759
You can keep calling me dumb, or you can explain why the anus photo is "intellectual" and the aestetically appealing--oops am I doing it wrong already, I meant ugly and not-as-appealing-as-anuses--painting is "anti-intellectual". I am so very willing and eager to learn from you.

So share your wisdom. Teach me why Hitler's art is bad and why photographs of anuses are good art!

I am your pupil, o professor of all that is "intellectual" (your word, not mine).

>>4304782
Please, share your intellect with us.

What is anti-intellectual about liking Hitler's painting?

What is intellectual about anus photos--or any modern art?

>>4304786

>You can keep calling me dumb, or you can explain why the anus photo is "intellectual" and the aestetically appealing--oops am I doing it wrong already, I meant ugly and not-as-appealing-as-anuses--painting is "anti-intellectual". I am so very willing and eager to learn from you.

>What is intellectual about anus photos--or any modern art?

Seriously, what part of "cherry-picked" don't you people understand?

>>4304788
>or any modern art?
Your really don't see whats intelectually stimulating about the futurists or action painting?
And no ones defending anus photos you stupid fucking skinhead.

>>4304791
The point is that there is a difference in ideals. Ideals by their very nature can only be materially approximated. Whether it is propaganda or not is irrelevant. Modern existence casts the lowest of human possibilities as the apotheosis of being.

>>4304821

>Modern existence casts the lowest of human possibilities as the apotheosis of being.

No, a certain part of modern existence does this. A very marginal part, a part so small it's almost non-existent

>>4304808
>you stupid fucking skinhead

How intellectual.

>>4304808
I said "any modern art" to give you an extremely broad window with which to make your case.

>Your really don't see whats intelectually stimulating about the futurists or action painting?

I googled "action painting" and I got this.

I suppose I am just dumb, because I certainly do not see anything intellectual about it at all. Much less more intellectual than Hitler's art. I still don't understand why Hitler's art is "anti-intellectual" either.

Please, explain to me like I am six. What is intellectual about these paint splatters? What makes it more intellectual than Hitler's painting?

>>4304808
The most amusing thing about modern art is seeing pseudo-intellectuals with their heads so far up their ass they not only think pretending to enjoy this dreck makes them superior, they actually think _other people_ will view them as some deep and intelligent intellectual too!

Nobody thinks you are some great genius operating on another plane of existence from us plebs. Everyone just thinks you're a twat.

>To Greenberg, it was the physicality of the paintings' clotted and oil-caked surfaces that was the key to understanding them as documents of the artists' existential struggle.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_painting

>>4304833
He diagnosed the problem, that's certainly an intellectual feat.

>>4304917
What problem?

Looks like the modern art hipster beat a hasty retreat.

>>4304942
That you're a fucking idiot.

>>4304965
How so?

>>4304720
>There are retired old ladies in first year painting courses painting that very image in the top frame right this moment. Lrn2art, you anti-intellectual fucktard.

>>4304808
>Your really don't see whats intelectually stimulating about the futurists or action painting?

There is no way retired old ladies could achieve the awe inspiring skill and craftsmanship that goes into "action painting"!

The extreme difficulty of it. The way it leaves you in amazement at the talent of the creator. The deep intellectual appreciation of their prowess with a brush. That is what makes art!

Anti-intellectuals just don't understand the skill it takes to shit paint out of your anus onto a canvas.

>>4304983
How do people like this even come to /lit/? I doubt someone with this intellect and comprehension of arts even reads. Tell me, anon, what are your favorite books?

>>4304786
No one ever defended the anus-photos. You are acting like he thinks they are great art. No one but you mentioned them. You are either a troll or a fucking idiot.
Either way, stop shitposting.

>>4304998
By way of the doggy door called /pol/.

>modern art

wow
such absurd
so alienation
wow

... This thread is fucking retarded. Bashing on modern art is Daily-Mail tier stupidity.

If you're pigshit ignorant about something, you should research it, not denigrate it.

>>4305014
Agreed. I'm bailing. One /pol/ faggot ruined a good thread.

>>4304861
>Please, explain to me like I am six. What is intellectual about these paint splatters?
Its enjoyable and new. The chaos of it all makes it a fun treat when it works out nicely.

I'm not impressed by neoclassical art because it's merely an idealization of reality. If I wanted that, I could do it with a camera and Photoshop. While the technical skill required for such works is certainly admirable, technical skill is not stimulating - artistic vision is stimulating.

The best modern art epitomizes artistic vision by drawing on a reality that is unique to the artist - which is why it is superior to neoclassical art.

>>4305014
If you think modern art is good why not respond to the questions asking someone to explain what is intellectual about childish splatters like this: >>4304861 but anti-intellectual about Hitler's paintings?

You can only insult people who call bullshit on this "emperor's new clothes" farce, but you can't explain what's intellectual about modern art. You can't defend it at all.

I'll just leave this here:
http://documentaryaddict.com/Why+Beauty+Matters-542-documentary.html

>>4305058
This is absolute shit.

>>4304602
>not a single refutation, only whining

:)

>>4304874
best post ITT, look I get you're some shit artist with no talent, but at least you have the talent to make some worthless mouth breathers believe what you do is actually anything worthwhile. the true imbeciles are the ones defending shit tier artists, i can't blame them for taking advantage of pseudo-intellectual hipsters though

muh artz
muh next level of existence
2deep5u
so advanced
such irony
meaningful wow

>>4305053
That doesn't explain what makes it intellectual. Nor does it explain what makes Hitler's far more appealing and skillful art anti-intelletual.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intellectual

>>4302231
>all these (?) anons saying Neetshy was Nazi/Fashy

Just because he was mentally unstable doesn't mean he had anything to do with those childish ruses.

>>4305057
.. First off, there's quite a lot of modern art, so defending it all is a pretty stupid idea. That's like defending books. I know you don't intend to be anti-intellectual, but you're managing it, simply because you're so fucking stupid that the turds that slip out of your mouth are corrosive to intelligence.

Hitler's a pretty shit artist, though.

>>4305070
>implying that he wouldn't like them more than liberalism or socialism

They may not have been his ideological dream team, but you can bet they would meet his approval more than any other relevant 20th century ideology

>>4305072
look at this faggot, arguing semantics instead of addressing the argument. i see flipping burgers in your future

>>4305064
Care to expand on that?

>>4305078
Again, mentally unstable.

>>4305097
>judging the edgemeister by liberal secular humanist standards of mental health

Sure hope refrainment etc.

>>4305084
>semantics
The mating cry of retards everywhere, almost always used to cover the fact that they don't understand what you've said. It's not semantics to point out that asking somebody to defend 'modern art' is like asking somebody to defend 'cars', or 'trees', or any other hopelessly broad category.

>>4305084
fag

>>4305107
>brain cancer is a liberal secular humanist obfuscation

Sure, doc.

>>4305072
How is Hitler's art bad?

The person who initially criticised it said a "grandma" could do it, apparently attacking it based on technical competence.

But how then can you defend trash like "action painting" which is just splatters thrown at a canvas randomly with no skill or talent at all? A random series of events like an explosion at a paint factory could create better "art" than that.

At least Hitler's painting couldn't be done by a literal retard with deformed limbs, like the "action painting" lauded by the modern art internet defense force in this thread.

The MAIDF has a lot of insults to throw around but not one of you has provided any criteria by which it can be said Hitler's painting is anti-intellectual (or "shit") while actual random splatters are intellectual (or "good").

>>4305163
Hitler's art is the type of shit you find framed over your bed in some quaint backwoods bed and breakfast run by a retired couple who both have hearing problems. It's about as artistic as a garden gnome. It's gaudy and uninspired.

Then again Napoleon wrote sappy love stories.

>>4305109
you understood what he meant unless you're functionally illiterate, but because you have no answer to his argument you instead diverted it and purposely obfuscated the issue so you'd feel like you calling him a retard was justified, despite the fact that you have just about zero net contribution either pro or against his position. now kill yourself faggot

>>4305109
I said ANY modern art. The fellow who stepped up to the plate suggested that "action painting" was a good example of "intellectual" art. So I googled it and posted some examples. It's complete trash that a toddler could do. Feel free to provide your own examples.

If you yourself don't understand what you are trying to say well enough to express it in plain English, then clearly you are blowing smoke out your ass.

>>4305163
>literal retard

I read that as a liberal retard initially.

This was the only think of merit Hitler ever painted. It's beautiful and haunting and will live throughout the ages.

>>4305172
And "action painting" is the type of shit you find on any parent's refrigerator.

Hitler's art took some skill. By comparison it is far better.

>>4305187
Judging art by the effort it took to make is truly the most plebby of lower middle class tv watching kind of bud light theory of aesthetics.

>>4305187
Also, there's no way you could make something close to Pollock's work. You underestimate it with the bravado of the uninitiated.

>>4305197
skill =/= effort

>>4305204
And technical skill =/= artistic merit.

>>4305212
anything with artistic merit needs a level of skill.

>>4305197
>Judging art by the effort it took to make is truly the most plebby of lower middle class tv watching kind of bud light theory of aesthetics.

>>4304720
>There are retired old ladies in first year painting courses painting that very image in the top frame right this moment.

You mean exactly what the first guy who criticised Hitler's art did?

>>4305203
>Also, there's no way you could make something close to Pollock's work. You underestimate it with the bravado of the uninitiated.
Make up your mind. Is the talent required irrelevant or is it so important that your feathers got ruffled over it? You need to pretend Pollock's random splatters took skill in order to validate your feigned appreciation of his trash.

>An eye for art! Argentinian painter snorts paint and then squirts it onto canvas though his EYE to create Jackson Pollock-style masterpieces
>Jackson Pollock-style masterpieces
>masterpieces

This "style" is so random a guy can do it with his eye.

>>4305182
OK, let's imagine us two standing in front of Malevich's black square.

Me- "Malevich wanted to get away from the obstructions of real objects to create the best possible exposition of the events of 1915 Russia."
You-"but, but, a toddler could do it."
Me-"Hey, hold his arms." (I start fishing in my pants for my cock, as my guys push you down to your knees.)
You-"what are you doing?"
Me-"Suck my penis."
You-"No way."
(I hit you in the face, and you fold like a wet napkin, and nod, defeated, as I present my cock to you again.)
Me-"Uh, that's right bitch."
You-"mmm Mmm! mm!"
Me-"Done this before, huh?"
You-"Mmm mmm"
Me-"Uh," (I shoot my load in your mouth, then hold your nose until you swallow, and walk out of the gallery.)

>>4305224
And not everything with a level of skill has artistic merit.

See: Bob Ross
See: Hitler

>>4305212
This. It's why there have never been any great female artists. They can master the technical form, but they lack the creative genius.

>>4305224
Artistic will leads naturally to adequate skill to express it.

>>4305235
So I won this hypothetical argument on line two, which you couldn't rebut.

Amazingly you somehow even lose arguments to strawmen.

>>4305238
I don't know why people are saying hitler has skill. Its really easy to paint shit watercolour landscapes.

>>4305238
nobody is even arguing that you dipshit

>>4305241
>adequate skill
In other words: none.

These modern art "masterpeices" are indistinguishable from the mist of a wet horse fart hitting the side of the stable.

>>4305241
wrong

see: bullshit posted ITT

>>4305231
>You mean exactly what the first guy who criticised Hitler's art did?
Old ladies painting it says more about the artistic merit than the level of skill involved. Old ladies tend to be bad bitches when it comes to technical skill in all kinds of creative endeavours. My grandma can make some 3d christmas cards that will leave you in awe. It's just that they feature fat little angels and teddy bears.

>Make up your mind. Is the talent required irrelevant or is it so important that your feathers got ruffled over it? You need to pretend Pollock's random splatters took skill in order to validate your feigned appreciation of his trash.
I merely pointed out that even by your own standards you are wrong. But by all means give it a try and see if you get close to his level of skill and composition.

>>4305243
Not for the majority of the populace, it isn't.

Nobody is saying his work is amazing. But it took more skill than "modern art" and is also aesthetically more appealing.

>>4305253
>by all means give it a try and see if you get close to his level of skill and composition.
There's no skill involved. It's random paint splatters.

>>4305254
The fact that you make such sweeping statements regarding 'modern art' shows your ignorance.

You smile, thinking "I may have swalled a quart of his semen, but I've won the argument. He couldn't come back from my toddler comment." Damn, does your mouth taste like salt.

You walk back into the main hall of the gallery, ignoring the shocked looks of bystanders, and get home, chuckling to yourself the whole way.

Until you get on the bus, and you see me standing there. Is that a bat in my hands? You feel something nudge against your back.

Me-Hey bro, do you want to talk about modern art?
You-No, no, I swear!
You never see the swing coming as the guy behind you hits you in the back of the leg with a bat. Each strike feels like an explosion, and we beat you for what feels like an eternity. Then your hear the sound of a zipper being lowered, and suddenly feel a stream of warm liquid spattering onto your clothes. Several men are pissing on you.

The bus driver then throws you off the bus.

>>4305260
>random
You truly have the eye of a philistine.

>>4305260
yeah but those paint splatters represent his chaotic soul rebelling against the shackles of aesthetic rigor. nobody could have done that. NOBODY. Could you have thrown that grey misty shade over a bright yellow while intersecting the red that represents the shackles drawing the Biblical blood? Could you? HUH? COULD YOU?

>>4305254
Have you seen hitler's paintings? They are about as aesthetically appealing as a picture of the same thing. No passion or integrity anything. Then he went on to kill jews.

>>4305269
You can hurl insults.

But you can't explain what took skill in that painting and how it can be distinguished from any other pile of random paint splatter.

>>4305264
>>4305266
>>4305269

lol at these faggots, everyone is waiting for half the thread for you idiots to explain why its so great already

>>4305260
If you think it's that easy then you could do it too and make loads of money off it. There's a whole thing going on.

>>4305281
yeah money laundering

>>4304759
>I mean, you do know that just about everything on the nazi side is propaganda, right?

This is what always astonishes me the most - the fact that these /pol/-bred, self-professed autodidact historians of the Nazi regime completely ignore the undeniable existence of a huge propaganda industry in the Third Reich. Fuck, they even take the pictures of Hitler with animals and children at face value, as if that wasn't the most clichéd and widely-utilised form of building a cult of personality.

>>4305239
>It's why there have never been any great female artists

u wot m8?

>>4305281
>and make loads of money off it.
Ah, the last resort of a pretentiuos pseudo-intellectual hiptser.

This is like telling someone who criticises people paying tons for celebrity panties to go wear and sell their own panties.

>>4304861
>>4304983
The thing with "art" like this is that nobody would know it was supposedly "good" without being told who it is by and that it is popular/famous.

They don't have some deep meaningful experience looking at these turds. They only pretend to after they discover it is famous and anyone who doesn't like it must be too stupid to understand.

It's the emperor's new clothes, except the self deluding retards just get angry and tell the child he is a moron when he points out their bullshit.

>>4305306
The thing is, the person who made tons of money by splashing paint against a canvas devoted their entire life to "art" or whatever. And probably has an art background, and is capable of painting a legitimate scene. They established trust. But sometimes i doesn't even have to be like that. Sometimes you can just tell an experimental painting is rich, creative and meaningful. And if you think its just mindlessly throwing on a canvas, you misunderstand .

Picasso is a good example. He was a skilled painter early on, but then moved towards experimental styles. And you could totally tell Picasso had something going on. Art is, after all, about elevating aesthetic thinking.

>>4305290
Nobody denies it is propaganda. They like Nazi propaganda because it advocates wholesome views. Nazi propaganda tells you to be strong and proud of yourself. They advocate racial soidarity and a sense of community.

In modern times you don't see propaganda like that. Instead you see "white privilege" and other anti-White propaganda. All they ever do is beat White people down, especially men.

It's no wonder people find Nazi propaganda appealing after being raised on decades of anti-White propaganda.

>>4305341
That's a terrible example. Picasso is complete trash.

>>4305351
skinhead pls

>>4305341
I'm glad you mentioned Picasso. Because when he tried painting realistically he sucked. Worse than Hitler.

>Portrait of Gertrude Stein, 1906, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City. When someone commented that Stein did not look like her portrait, Picasso replied, "She will".

It's a bad painting and despite his glib response obviously he lacked the talent to paint a lifelike portrait.

He then got clever and decided to be "bad on purpose" which provides the plausible deniability when you fuck up that you can claim it's intended to be that way. He's a clever shyster, but a terrible artist.

>>4305351
Have you ever seen asymmetry so beautiful?

>>4305359
Pic related, Picasso when he actually tried realism as opposed to your example.

>>4305341
>Sometimes you can just tell an experimental painting is rich, creative and meaningful
How can you tell? When it gets its own wikipedia page?

If not, please articulate the criteria by which you can tell that Pollocks splatters are great but any toddler's are not.

>>4305359
I actually think that portrait is better than any portrait Hitler did. The colours, the tone, the mood.

It's not about tracing reality.

>>4305379
If pic related looks random to you then it will be very hard to explain to you why it isn't because the way your mind works allows no sensible frame of reference.

>>4305384
And you also think pollocks paint splatters are better. So what?

>>4305379
It looks good. I colours mean something, and it has movement to it.

But maybe I'll see that in a toddler's painting, then I'll call that nice too. I couldn't imagine it happening.

>>4305186
>beautiful and haunting

Not really. It's loud and violent, with jagged angularity and screaming contrasts.

>>4304861
I think the painting is intriguingly kinetic, in a sense. The lines of paint convey a sort of a chaotic motion that seems almost alive. If you look at for a while, you notice the composition isn't really random all - the colours work very well together and the yellow lines of the foreground are clearly meant to stand out and guide the spectator's gaze.

That is just my opinion, though.

>>4305359

It still baffles me that, despite the huge wealth of art criticism and courses and whatnot, apparently educated people can still hold such moronic opinions as yours.

Picasso was a remarkable draftsman, and that portrait of Stein is remarkable. You should get a book of his early sketches and think again - if he had wanted to paint as a realist, he certainly had to talent to have done.

>>4305391
If you can't explain something it's because you yourself do not understand it.

>>4305394
>Not really. It's loud and violent, with jagged angularity and screaming contrasts.
Yes, that's it man. Perfect for it's purpose. You couldn't come up with a better flag. I couldn't at least.

>>4305398
Let's say I show you a picture of a girl and you don't even recognise a representation of a person in that picture. What will I have left to go on? It's like arguing over pic related with someone who's colour blind.

>>4305359
Spend some time immersed in the art world. Figure things out. Then maybe your mind will change. Is this one of the first times having any debate about or trying to appreciate art?

>>4305395
The portrait of Stein is off model. So is your pic.

>all these commies and stormfags trying to pull Freddies rapidly rotating body to their side
Are we being raided or what? He dickslaps totalitarian regimes and Marxism in every fucking book.

>>4305394
>I think the painting is intriguingly kinetic, in a sense. The lines of paint convey a sort of a chaotic motion that seems almost alive.
i.e. random splatters.

>you notice the composition isn't really random all
How so? Where can any precision or deliberacy be observed?

>the yellow lines of the foreground are clearly meant to stand out
How can you tell? Because they do? How do you know they weren't supposed to blend in but it just worked out like that?

>and guide the spectator's gaze.
Guide it where?

>>4305370
The refracted light on the woman's hair is really perspicacious and skillful.

>>4305409
Either close minded or unable to understand.

>>4305402
>What will I have left to go on?
You can point out the girl.

>It's like arguing over pic related with someone who's colour blind.
That would be a simple matter of telling them where the dots are they can't see.

2deep4u isn't a very good argument.

>>4305408
>not misrepresenting people's views to fit your world outlook

lol ure literate

>>4305416
You can't point out the girl to someone who doesn't see her at all when it's a portrait.

The Pollock painting above has shapes, patterns, layers and choice of colours in a clearly organised way. If you can't see them I won't resort to MS paint to draw arrows on it for you.

>>4305403
Teach me, oh wise guru.

>>4305415
3deep5u

>>4305409
>How do you know they weren't supposed to blend in but it just worked out like that?

le death of the painter face.jpeg

who cares how they were supposed to anything?

>>4305423
>>4305429

Honestly I can't teach you, nothing anyone else says will help you in your mindset right now. You have to make a change yourself and change your viewpoint and the way you see things.

>>4305422
>You can't point out the girl to someone who doesn't see her at all when it's a portrait.
Of course you can. What a retarded claim to make.

The only way you COULDN'T explain yourself is if you are only pretending and there's nothing there.

>in a clearly organised way

Where? Organized how? And explain how you would be able to tell if he accidentally fucked up--or even better point out places where he did fuck up!

>If you can't see them I won't resort to MS paint to draw arrows on it for you.

In other words you're only pretending. You can't explain in clear words because you can only convince people if they pretend along with you.

>>4305412
Yes, Picasso was very skilled. That doesn't really fit the agenda of the invading /pol/locks with their anti entartete kunst sentiments though.

For them, anything that isn't wholesome realism must be shown to be bunk.

>>4305441
>I can't teach you
Then you don't know yourself.

>>4305443
How about you explain me the artistic merit of one of Hitler's paintings first so I can get an idea of which approach to take.

>>4305444
I like surrealism.

I just don't like talentless hacks whose only ability is to bilk pretentious fools out of their money. That comprises all modern art.

>>4305445
According to your logic you can put downies in the white house with the right education.

>>4305454
Surrealism is modern art, you silly, silly boy. Get educated.

>>4305449
It looks like something--not necessarily something real or even possible in our dimension--and took at least some talent to create.

Whether it's aesthetically appealing is up to you.

>>4305445
You need to know yourself. You're stuck in a very set mindset right now. Completely closed to anything anyone says that implies that "random lines" aren't "random lines."

>>4305463
Hitler's paintings took practice.

But there was no discernible creativity in them.

>>4305409
So now you are picking apart my sentence as if it were a logical proposition? Aesthetic impressions cannot be explicated except in interpretive language. No wonder you have trouble enjoying most modern art.

>>4305466
>Completely closed to anything anyone says that implies that "random lines" aren't "random lines."
I am actually very open to this. I have been inviting an explanation from the very beginning.

You refuse to go beyond bare assertion because you are a pretentious hipster who is pretending to see things that aren't there.

>>4305463
>It looks like something--not necessarily something real or even possible in our dimension
That's saying exactly nothing. Everything looks like something without the bounds of realism to define those criteria. So this goes for Pollock as well.

>and took at least some talent to create.
Again, this goes for Pollock, as shows by the fact that not a lot of people can even get close to his specific style. You wouldn't be able to paint something and pass it off as a Pollock painting.

>>4305478
>So this goes for Pollock as well.
Pollocks looks like random paint splatters.

I suppose I will clarify: Looks like something other than what it actually is.

A rock indistinguishable from any other is not good art. But a rock carved into the appearance of something else is.

>>4305409
>>4305470

Yeah, that guy better not trying read Walter Benjamin or else his brain will explode.

>>4305471
>you are a pretentious hipster who is pretending to see things that aren't there

This is the closed mindedness I'm talking about. Don't use stereotypes...

I'm sorry to tell you this, but art can't be explained in logical statements. Again, it's something you'll figure out yourself.

>>4305493
>art can't be explained in logical statements
Yes it can. I did so here: >>4305463

If it doesn't take any skill, it's shitty. You might as well go appeciate nature as it's more amazing than paint drizzled off a brush with no rhyme or reason to it.

A comparison could be made to music. It has to have some form or pattern to it, otherwise it is just noise.

>>4305500
>A comparison could be made to music. It has to have some form or pattern to it, otherwise it is just noise.

It's strange though that modern music sounds so different from classical music if it all has the same pattern.

All art has patterns. Aesthetic context changes. If you can't see the patterns in experimental art you are just ignoring them or don't want to see them.

>Nietzsche thread turns into stomrfag vs gommie and a modern art discussion
Oh, /lit/ I do not expect nothing and I'm let down.

>>4305345
>Nobody denies it is propaganda

Oh yes, they do. They obfuscate or handwave the fact, at least. And they use it as proof of Hitler's compassionate, almost quasi-divine nature, which in their minds lends credibility to the ideology as a whole.

>>4305493
>it's something you'll figure out yourself.
I'm pretty sure I've got it figured out. It's like the emperor's new clothes. People who are convinved anyone who doesn't see something is stupid, so they pretend to see something which isn't there.

If it were there, you could articulate where it is.

Pollock's paintings are nothing more than the sum of their parts. It's just paint on a canvas. They don't take on any other grander form. The only "art" involved is the art of grifting.

>>4305505
>If you can't see the patterns in experimental art you are just ignoring them or don't want to see them.
If there were any rhyme or reason to Pollocks dribbles you could point it out. Your inability to articulate this phantom design is because you are imagining you see something which isn't there.

>>4305500
Noise is music, dummy.

>>4305553
Music has a pattern to it.

>>4305551
Many people can find meaning and joy out of looking at modern art. You can't.

Showing off your incapacity is pretty lame.

>>4305551
I'm just ticked off at how certain you are that there isn't any pattern there, and that anyone who thinks something is there is insane.

>>4305505
> If you can't see the patterns in experimental art you are just ignoring them or don't want to see them.

Point them out.

>>4305562
It doesn't matter how much joy anus photographs bring you. It's a crummy excuse for "art". People who don't like it are not failing to understand. On the contrary, they understand perfectly well there is nothing there but your imagination and putting your imagination into anus photographs is a waste of brain power.

Showing off your inability to see that the emperor has no clothes is pretty lame.

>>4305567
There isn't. You keep telling me God exists but you won't show me where he is or how you know of his existence.

>>4305567
It's pretty classic sour grapes. He's just jealous of the rest of us who enjoy modern art.

>>4305574
We already did, you dolt. Also, this >>4305562

>>4305562
The capacity stems from a circle-jerk and the belief that a select few "intellectually superior" are the only ones capable of seeing it, and that YOU are one of them. I commend the shitniggers with no artistic ability on making money off sheep like you though.

>>4305533
>>4305290
>/pol/-bred, self-professed autodidact historians of the Nazi regime
>They obfuscate or handwave the fact, at least. And they use it as proof of Hitler's compassionate, almost quasi-divine nature, which in their minds lends credibility to the ideology as a whole.
Strawman general?

>>4305562
Richard Stallman derives enjoyment from eating skin(?) off his foot. That doesn't make his skin flakes fine dining.

http://youtu.be/I25UeVXrEHQ

>>4305601
How so? This characterisation is accurate in my experience.

>>4305574
"At a certain moment the canvas began to appear to one American painter after another as an arena in which to act. What was to go on the canvas was not a picture but an event." - some guy.

This is in the case of painting like Pollock did. It might look like random stuff. But there is still meaning. It means something to the artist and to many who enjoy it.

In another case of abstract art, pic related, I think the pattern is clearer. I personally just like this painting when put in context with its title. "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue".

>>4305592
>not finding beauty in the human asshole
Must suck having such awful taste.

>>4305600
I don't have that belief. Anyway, contemporary art is becoming a bit like modernist furniture. It used to be just for intellectuals. Now, it's sold by the ton at IKEA. Soon, only ultra-reactionary retards won't be able to tell the difference between good modern art and bad.

>>4305596
>We already did, you dolt.
Where?

Your response is going to be "if you can't see meaning in Jackson Pollocks paintings then you won't see the hyperlink to a previous post, even if I do link it!" or some other bullshit excuse.

>>4305610
so what you're saying is there is no pattern?

it means something to a 4 year old baby too, the enjoyment is entirely from a form of pseudo-intellectual hipster circlejerking. it's worthless

>>4305624
>pseudo-intellectual hipster circlejerking

I have no friends and I spend all my time trying to appreciate and understand art. What do you do in your life? I'm really curious about what you do.

>>4305617
>I don't have that belief.

>Soon, only ultra-reactionary retards won't be able to tell the difference between good modern art and bad.

>>4305486
So according to you artistic merit lies in emulation? Lel.

>>4305618
>that picture
>thinking Republicans aren't just yesterday's liberals
>thinking they aren't as willfully ignorant as leftists

>>4305633
I do my best not to spend all my time trying to appreciate and understand art.

Guys?

>>4305638
everything is emulation idiot

>>4305635
>a select few "intellectually superior"

Well, I'm obviously intellectually superior to you, since you can't even read, but as you might have noticed on second inspection, my point is that so is everyone else.

Ultra-reactionary retards, are, frankly a small section of the population. A particularly challenged one, but thankfully rare. They often, in my experience, suffer from inbreeding.

>>4305618
>/pol/ not even trying to hide where they are from

I blame those reactionary lit threads. It was a noble idea, but look where it got us.

Violation of global rule #3 in progress.

>>4305644
it is too late friedrich
it was always too late

>>4305647
So everything has artistic merit, including Pollock and including pictures of anuses.

Fine with me.