/lit/ - Literature

>>5136869
'wrong'

Well, at least you're not saying it's not art.

>>5136876
Why did I laugh at this

>>5136869
Yes, but it's a creative nihilism, not passive a bloo bloo nihilism. By being anti-artistic it frees art from the trappings of representationalism, and celebrates pure art.

>>5136876
Yes, it is still art insofar as it still has people praising it.

>>5136869

> art is anti-artistic

> finding novel uses of a medium destroys it

You troglodyte. I bet you still masturbate to the Venus of Willendorf.

Do you actually have a mouth or just two assholes?

>>5136886
>and celebrates pure art
I see the opposite: it celebrates nothingness, which is anti-art.

Art is intent.

>>5136900

art is creation and interpretation

>>5136886
This.

Modern art is more art than earlier art - for good or bad. Earlier art was beautiful, sure, but it was too manifestational and didn't pose philosophical questions which is what essentially separates art from design.

>>5136910
>and didn't pose philosophical questions
Are you sure about that?

>>5136910
>muh purity

older art had levels and layers. modern art is polar. you either are with it or you are out in the cold working your factory job like the pleb you are.

so modern art plays into all of the shit things about the western culture

>>5136910

Dude, the first painting on a cave wall posed a philosophical question: Is this a representation of my hand/that gazelle/a female form?

What is a circle? A distillation? A real thing?

C'mon. It's all philosophical. It's that we simply pose old questions in new ways, and new questions in old ways, and etc.

>>5136915
>>5136928
I knew I wouldn't get away with that statement. I meant of course compared to modern.

There's ideology/philosophy in everything, but art is conscious of itself and makes inquiries. What separates a statue from a 3D model?

Why do you say that nihilism is necessarily anti-artistic?

>>5136924

that's awfully 1D.

Modern art poses image and form in new ways. It doesn't have to be about being "with it" or not. If it means something to you, then think about it. Use it. If not, it becomes grey to YOU, and you see it as a branding thing.

don't reduce a movement to your opinion's blind spots.

>>5136937

Rodin/Giacometti?

Or Bernini?

What separates anything from anything? What something is intended to represent, how it's represented, and how it's interpreted.

>>5136910
certain that a child wrote this.

i don't wish for any markers of identity on 4/lit/, but a compulsory and verified age would wash away my face in euphoria

I don't know if I'd call it nihilistic. Nietzsche said representational music was the least artistic sort, and that music which was pure was the most sublime. If he were alive to see the rise of abstract painting, he might have said the same thing there.

>>5136898
how does it "celebrate nothing" and how is that "anti-art"? you make all these statements but don't provide any sort of argumentation to sustain it.

>>5136959

I'd disagree that there are degrees of "more" or "less" artistic. Art is art is art. All is art, and all is sublime, if one decides to consider it so.

I will say that if one considers some forms of representation closer to novel expression, closer to a more pure distillation of a message, then that may be more or less beautiful.

>>5136940
that's precisely what I'm saying, that modern can be 1D. In it's hunt for purity and abstraction it lost ground and it does not dare return to the earth. Only within the context of 'art' does it address 'dirt'. 'dirt' is never 'dirt', art context is rarely broken because 'paycheck'.

>Modern art poses image and form in new ways.
poses it for a select audience, most modern art we get to hear about has been 'sanctioned' and 'approved' by the monied

this is a critique of modern art, in no way am i advocating returning to older forms, nor am i sentimental in the least.

>don't reduce a movement to your opinion's blind spots.
can't i point out the movements own blind spots?

>>5136980
Well do you consider the survey photos on Google Earth to be art?

>>5136959
this is literally the first thing I disagree with Nietzsche on. I'm sure you've misquoted him

exact quote, or gtfo Femspinister

>>5136968
Abstraction vs. Representation. Abstract art gravitates towards "purifying" the scene, which means simplifying it, removing from it, making it closer and closer to a form of nothing. Now, art has plenty to do with the "divine," the unreachable, an abstraction in itself—but how can nothingness, which is pure abstraction, be called art, when art requires an eye, and there can't be an eye to behold nothingness? So in a way, nothingness may be "pure art," but "pure art" ends up being nothing like art at all.

>>5136987
I'll dig it up, but have you actually read the Birth of Tragedy?

>>5136869
> anti-artistic.

define artistic lol

>>5136985


"art
1 [ahrt] Show IPA
noun
1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2.
the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. See fine art, commercial art.
3.
a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4.
the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5.
any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art. "


Yes, I do. Or the product of it.

>>5136997
please stop putting ice cubes on my butthole, no i haven't read that one. find the quote kthx

if he does say that then he's only seeing one side of the coin.

>>5136985

But why don't you define art and take a position?

>>5137013
>early Nietzsche
>best Nietzsche

>>5136939

Anyone want to answer this?

>>5137045
See >>5136995 more or less.

>>5136995
not every instance of abstract art is trying to achieve some purity. even the one that are doing it are not striving for a nothingness but to a turn where the paint itself becomes more than the simple material precondition of painting and becomes the aesthetic object. if anything it's affirming the forms themselves which is far from celebrating nothingness.

>>5137082

>Pollock

>>5137013
>I first recall first of all the origin of the stilo rapprensentativo [representative style] and the recitative. Is it credible that this thoroughly externalized operatic music, incapable of devotion, could be received and cherished with enthusiastic favor, as a rebirth, as it were, of all true music, by the very age which had appeared the ineffably sublime and sacred music of Palestrina?
[...]
>It was in accordance with the laically unmusical crudeness of these views that the combination of music, image, and words was effected in the beginnings of the opera.
This from part 19 of the Birth of Tragedy (Kaufmann's translation). The last part of the work is devoted to the argument that representation is the death of art in music.

>>5137121
>>5137117
>>5137113
>>5137108

Cool posts.

>>5136900
Someone hasn't read Danto...

>>5137101
thanks, looking it up now.

from that i would argue that while nietzsche at this stage has penetrated the abstraction, but hasn't penetrated the reality, the concrete.

in other words this sound like a love of theoretical diamonds, instead of diamonds in reality, in situ, in representation itself. halves made whole.

>>5136869
does anyone have a reading suggestion that would help me understand contemporary paintings, or paintings in general for that matter?

>>5137140
Thank you, I am a cool person, as you have so astutely observed, but let me add that it takes one to know one. *fedora tips subtly, out of view, hidden from others*

>>5136869
>>5136869

To assert the salubrious concatenation of being-as-a-phenomenon qua baudrillardian hyperreality extends towards a metaphysics of presence tangentially nihilistic in a derridean sense.

>>5137209

lol, not really. I have textbooks from classes and just a general context granted me by my upbringing...

I guess "A World of Art" and lots of compilations of artists' works with their histories written along.

Or do it yourself. The internet holds plenty of free information.

Op should read Abstract and Empathy.

>>5136869
Nigger, what? Modernist Minimalism was literally all about stripping the art form down to the barest essentials in order to explore the barest essentials of functions and techniques in their respective media.

Are you from /pol/? Are you going to use the term degeneracy next?

I mean, you could have just said Dadaism which was a literal anti-art movement, but I'm almost certain you took the first 2deep4u art movement you could find and attacked that instead.

And fuck, if I'm going to name drop Dadaism, I may as well ask. Is there anything wrong with anti-art movements?

>>5137101
>>5137201
ok fem you fail yet again. a clear misquote.

he's clearly talking about opera and the particular style of singing 'stilo representativo' which has the word 'representative' but it has very little to do with 'representational music' in general.

you can't just surface collect words from philosophers and impose your own meaning on it. the level of confusion in your life must be mountainous. you're building a house on sand. gl with that, convincing others that you know something so you can be the center of it.

>>5136869
>Hey guys I cracked the code! You know all that shit people in XX century were doing while basically saying "fuck art"? It's anti-artistic! Discuss!

>>5137329
Have you even read the work? You do realize that making art "comprehensible" is the entire purpose of the Socratic impulse, and thus the degeneration of art?

>>5137329
Futhermore in chapter 8 of Birth of Tragedy there's this:

>Through some peculiar weakness in our modern talent, we are inclined to imagine primitive aesthetic phenomena in too complicated and abstract a manner. For the true poet, metaphor is not a rhetorical trope, but a representative image which really hovers in front of him in the place of an idea.

Which puts Nietzsche back in accord with me re: this post >>5137201

cont.

>For him the character is not some totality put together from individual traits collected bit by bit, but a living person, insistently there before his eyes, which differs from the similar vision of the painter only through its continued further living and acting.

"Minimalist/ abstract art" is too broad a category to have that useful a useful discussion I think. De Stijl is certainly not nihilistic, it's completely ideologically driven and if you can point me to some truly nihilistic art I will be impressed

Art is faggots romanticizing bullshit.

If its not realistic art than it is objectively shit.

>>5137374
You do realise that Socratic and Dionysean are at play with each other? That the only degeneration is the denial of one over the other?

>>5137396
I wouldn't be mad if I didn't know somebody who didn't genuinely believe

>If its not realistic art than it is objectively shit.

>>5137374
Also, you can't be older than 25.
This could be an age thing.

>>5137396
Cool post Bro \m/

>>5136889
So if a dog drops a turd on the sidewalk and some random passerby praises it, does that make it a work of art?

>>5137420
yes

>>5137376
One can't really help representation in drama and poetry (Kurt Schwitters being an unusual exception)

This thread has opened my mind to troll abstract artists.

>>5137422
Well, that's pretty retarded.

>>5137401
There's a difference between play between Socratic and Dionysian, and Apollonian and Dionysian. Nietzsche is not fond of the former

.>>5137409
I'm 24

>>5137429
What's retarded is someone praising a dog turd.

>>5137423
I don't see why not?

Bunuel makes it look easy for one.

>>5137435
Well Nietzsche wouldn't have been familiar with him, and he technically did represent stuff

>>5137444
but he was familiar with Schwitters?

>>5137455
Nope.

>>5137433
It's just as retarded as praising a painting by Piet Mondrian.

>>5137462
that was rhetorical quesiton

>>5137099
>can't even distinguish abstract minimalism from abstract expressionism
what a pleb

>>5137469
yo back the fuck up cause imma slap you

>>5137469
I agree

>>5137473
Who cares? It's all shit.

>>5137484
>abstract expressionism
>shit
play with your dad's gun you fucking mongoloid

>>5137495
Anything with abstract either before or after is just an excuse to be obtuse and sell it for money to idiots.

>>5136892
>>5136910
>>5136937
>>5136980
>>5136985
>>5137009
>>5137396
>>5137422
>>5137420
>>5137429
>>5137433
>>5137469
itt: people who've never even read art theory
>besides entry-level fagget adorno maybe

>>5137501
remember when Rothko gave back his commission on the Seagram's murals?

>>5136985
check this out, it's a project of photos from google earth
http://9-eyes.com/

this thread is giving me cancer. despite everything, despite every argument being made, despite every other thing wrong with this thread; is that this is /lit/. gtfffolfofoo

>>5137501
Oh, man, thanks God for mental illness, I'm laughing so hard

>>5136886
Dont those paintings represent lines, colours and compositions?

>>5137504
It's merely an attempt by these frauds to give their shit "art" value so that tasteless nouveau riche cunts will drop millions of dollars on their kindergarten finger paintings.

>>5137018
Art is simply expression.

>>5137533
moot misspelled /arts/ when he created /lit/

>>5137325
>Nigger
>"Are you from /pol/?"

>>5137588
Fucking this
Shit is shit
I shouldn't have to understand arbitrary rules made up by artists to understand the art

>>5137905

Great art should be made to communicate.

It need not be understood by all.

>>5137917
Was that contradiction intentional? :p

>>5137917
> you need to understand the rules to understand how the art speaks to you

You might as well tell me to stare at wall and read philosophy and imagine something greater

>>5137930

were you born reading english?

>>5137922
That's not a contradiction, m'lady.

>>5137945
If the primary purpose of something is to communicate, it wouldn't necessarily be understood by all, but there would be a way to translate it.

>>5136869
>implying there weren't abstract painters intent on creating the contemporary Sublime

>>5137950
You're assuming that translation (that is to say the translation in general that is always possible) somehow allows to understand the original thing. There's no reason for this to be true. We're talking about a definition of translation that includes all artforms here. Your conclusion seems far-fetched