/lit/ - Literature

Leonardo, Rembrandt, Bierstadt, I could go on...

>>5380236
>Prager University is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas. But it is a place where you are free to learn.

That guy does not understand Art.

>>5380323
But he's an artist and a professor!

>>5380292
>He actually pays for education.

>>5380236
the artistic defender

>>5380329
Shit man, at least use Coursera or something.

>>5380236
you can't argue with the facts

>>5380236
But that list is stupid
During the Illustration the concept of beauty was the imitation of the classical forms, variation over the technic was badly seen and rarely encouraged and lacking of quality. Progress was not part of the artistic view until well into the XX century.
It's like basic art history.

lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661TPEvCCTU

Thousands upon thousands lend money to get a liberal art degree and pay to hear that art is relative and that personal expression is king. I mean would students waste all that money to be duped into something that is wrong. Meanwhile all other majors question this belief because they are used to standards wether it be architecture or math. The art majors of course laugh at them in disbelief because they just don't get deep philosophy behind it.

The greatest artists of the 21th century is the con artists that construced the modern liberal arts education programmes.

Holy shit, this channel is incredible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg-wNxJ5XxY

>>5380349
I understand the need for standards, but the guy in OP's video is a fucking moron.

Standards are for industries and food. No one is telling you not to do classic pieces, it's just that you can't compete with Las Meninas.

And if your students can't diferentiate from a pollock and and apron it may be your fault since you are the one supposedly teaching them. If you feel superior making fun of people half your age who are trusting you to teach them I doubt you have any serious criteria.

>>5380352
love wasn't the answer ;(

>>5380349
>Thousands upon thousands lend money to get a liberal art degree and pay to hear that art is relative and that personal expression is king.

no they don't

>>5380349
I don't know if you are an art major, if you're not I'd like to know how you know what they teach or don't teach.
I'm not from the states, so it might be very different, but here you have a couple of joke art degrees like multimedia or popular music meant only to get more kids who don't know what they want to do with their lives, but the guys in painting have two art related phil classes per year, a couple of art history and then five or six classes where they have to present weekly or monthly paintings. They come out with a good amount of experience and a decent portfolio if they weren't pieces of shit for five years straight (some people are, it happens).
The video in the OP showed very little understanding of history, or more likely forced history to fit the teacher discourse. There are lousy teachers everywhere, but you don't put them up front to say stupid shit at your face and pick the most basic arguments.

>>5380352
Is he basically saying that ideology is the thing that matters most in life?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9FHKKbMZo

LOL this video i'm like in awe

>>5380375
I work at a university. The humanities are a joke and pretty much everybody knows it. Especially MFA, Creative Writing and I would also claim that a lot of art history is at fault with historiography and realy historians. Have a talk with true historians and they will tell you.

>They come out with a good amount of experience and a decent portfolio

Honestly, I doubt it unless you're at a really good school.

>>5380236
Why what a crock of shit. The only real bad art is performance art.

>>5380388
Holy shit, could you imagine Judith Butler watching this video?

>what you feel is less important than a value
>values are absolute
>feel like, want and desire is the same

>>5380378
Radio hosts tend to forget to get up to times with philosophy. Some times that makes the philosophic discussion hard because you need to revisit author with each person or stop talking with anyone who hasn't read the same as you, that tends to close borders for a lot of people itnerested in phil.

>>5380332
>defener

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk

>>5380398
Again, it may have to do with being free college with high demands making uninterested people either quit or stay trapped in the middle years. People end up doing over 50 works per year, in a technical sense they end up learning a lot at least from their own forced practice.
History is a hard thing since people always think their own small focus is the really important part and no one is really capable of understanding their own life at age 20, much less the complexities of many lives in a context you weren't there. For what I've seen it's a pretty ample spectrum, but maybe it has a very clear tendency.

>>5380434
god damn demmycrats

>>5380434
>the advance of communist tyrany had been halted

does anyone else have a craving for freedom fries right now

>>5380434
>not taking any time to discuss why the war was fought
>no context outside of the states
>no extrapolation
why would you even history?

>>5380493
Why the fuck would you study history? You some kind of Marxist or something?

I want to tell myself that the people like the OP only want to cash on what they think popular demand or at least what a certain amount of people not already giving their money to universities want to hear. But it's more likely that they really think that the art world is dominated by people bellow them and that the only place for classical styles is one of marginal fighting.

Modern art is a money laundering scheme.
There use to be a limited number of respected artists to buy from but then the rich people and mafia and jews decided to start buying art that was complete shit and pretend it was good, the poor people saw this happening and thought that if rich people think its good it must be good.
So now there are millions of pieces of shit art out there to help launder money.

>>5380378
Is it not? Žižek doesn't think there is outside ideology, he wants a different ideology.

>>5380236
Wow, I thought I had become emotionally numb to the world, but this moron makes my blood boil.

Thanks for reintroducing me to feelings, moron.

How does that fucktard explain work of Gerhard Richter then, or photorealism for that matter.

>>5380809
Photorealism has tendency to be reduced to technique and doesn't produce that interesting percepts.

>>5380835
May be so, I don't see how it's different from 19th century classicism then.

>>5380835
i was disappoint when i found out minimalism was just about technique too. I wish it was about actual conceptual minimalism

>>5380869
I think classicism is still a bit more interesting, at least in its themes. I don't agree with the video, just to be clear. I don't see art as progress. Maybe we're in a bit of an empty space right now, but it's not like this is a big regression compared to the whole history of art.

>>5380902
Alright. My point was that the guy in the video has narrow defined meaning of "standards" and probably thinks all modern art is solely abstract or conceptual.

>>5380901
What do you mean? Minimalism isn't just technique, it tries to produce an aesthetic sense with as little as possible.

>>5380916
Yeah, his idea of "standards" is pretty stupid. I think the guy is just a conservative, trying to convince others to believe his ideology.
And he completely ignores some forms of art like film, which is something that still has relatively strong standards for the most part, and I'm not talking about entertainment movies here.

>>5380236
That's a good fucking video. How the hell is anyone disagreeing with this? He sums up all the bullshit in a few minutes.

Personally I think all the world has to do is turn around; modern art's not in front of you where all the stupid galleries and middle-class universities are, it's behind you, where all the entertainment industries are. All those brilliantly made movies, video games, graphic novels, etc. is what modern art consists of, and much of it is still gorgeous and holds up to those old standards of high quality.

>>5380236
The only thing he chickened out on is admitting that today's art industry has turned into a money laundering scheme.

>>5380982
That would be too dangerous to say, he's no pinko commie.

>>5380969
The fire rises

>>5380986
It's the truth. Are you sure you want to know how far the rabbit hole goes?

http://mileswmathis.com/launder.pdf

>>5380994
Bane?

>>5381003
I agree with you. I'm just saying some conservative Americans don't want to criticize capitalism too directly because of their history.

>>5380982
All he had to do was point out that art museums are a business like any other which seek to produce the most sell-able products to get his point across that they're bullshit.

>>5381003
Interesting link. Thanks, Anon.

>>5380352
this is pretty stupid though. in the moral choice between a total stranger and your dog obviously the dog (the person you are saving could be hitler etc). And people don't cheat because of their values it's because they are afraid to get caught. And they don't NOT eat burguers all day because their VALUE is not to become obese, it's because they'll eventually be sadder if they are obese so the sadness is greater than the hapiness of eating burguer all day.
so no the most important thing isn't values, it's hapiness.

>>5381052
But it's your values that define what is happiness in the first place, that define the value of happiness itself - some may not find it to have the highest value actually. Your post also clearly expresses some of your values or morals implicit in your interpretation of other people's actions. You seem to have a few traces of utilitarianism maybe, or aristotelianism, but with more of an egoistic spin.

>>5381003
I wish this wasn't so long. His outrageous paranoia and blind self-confidence were amusing for a bit, but my lunch hour is over and I need to do something productive.

>>5380236
>uplifted us
>us
Who? Them rich folks, that's who.

>>5380969
Iloveyou, neverchange

>>5380982
Because it's only a money laundering shceme as much as pretty much anything else. Way less than his private school where they help you think what you already though before.

>>5380236
>art reduced to personal expression
>reduced
Seriously, this is hilarious.

>>5381052
Yes and no. You are more or less as right as he is. If you want to settle an absolute system about how everything else you better have a couple hundred paged of justification to make your logic sound, otherwise it may sound okay or not depending on the reader and just that.

>>5381182
It's no longer the expression of god, so it's bad. We need to go back to the pictures of jesus in the cross, that was some good shit,

>>5380961
yeah technique, i meant technique like 'trying to do 'aesthetic sense' with as little as possible' the point is it is about 'doing' , w/r/t as little as possible.

I was hoping it would be all about nihilism and lack of hope and kingsofedgy and apathy and mental illness and disgust with latecapitalism

Is anyone currently doing renaissance /religious art, classical art, cave paintings, ironically?

tfw you'll never be schnabel

>>5380388
I thought this was gonna make sense.
Now I know better.

Can someone here tell me the objective criteria for good art? I mean, in literature, it's about communicating to your audience. You have to be able to get across your story, message, or whatever to your audience effectively (this does not just include shock value and pulling on heart strings). But what about the fine arts?

>>5381238
Maybe you put too much emphasis on content i.e. the objects painted. I find paintings more interesting from the aspect of giving you new perceptions on the world aesthetically. What minimalism does is showing how even the most basic elements, the most minimal compositions already have some sense of direction and force to them, and it makes the viewer more sensible to such minimal elements. You might look at houses differently after looking at a few minimalist works, for example.

>>5381271
Creating new percepts. Like, some author may show how to experience shadows in a completely new way, or another one might do that with lines that divide one object from another, yet another one might show the instability of perception itself. Things like that.

>>5381294
But is this actually apparent in the classics? It seems like all they wanted to do is create hyper-realistic paintings. Which is all fine, but it gets boring after a while. Having distortions in a painting for emphasis on a new perception seems kind of neat though. Kind of like that weird gravity room with stairs going EVERYWHERE.

>>5380388
>mfw a fox news shill pretends to be feminist

>>5381271
has 2 look gud

>>5381301
>But is this actually apparent in the classics?
Nope.
>>5380343

>>5380378
He's saying that the way we think makes ideology the thing that matters most in our lives.

>>5381314
What is good though? Hyper-realism?

>>5381319
Seems kind of lame then. Just take a photo.

>>5381320
By "him" I meant Zizek, I didn't watch the video you linked to. THAT guy is saying that ideology is the most important because it is.

>>5381301
>>5381319
>But is this actually apparent in the classics?
Yes. It is just really really subtle.

>>5381238
But it is about that some times, only that we've moved on to painting stuff that can only be transmited through painting the same way you can fin poetry that loses value when read out loud. Searching for the particularity of the medium is a by product of the increment in variety of media. For example, a lot of classicist painters wanted to show the beauty of the natural world in their paintings and used augmentations like a camera obscura to help them show reality as close as possible. That search is pointless if you can take a photography, so the people who were interested in displaying the work of god now a days can chose if they wanna just show it or add their interpretation of it.

>>5381331
Futurist artists back in the day said that realism in painting was pointless because of photography.

>>5380434
Couldn't even get passed 7 seconds, holy fuck.

>>5381182
As in, as long as the artist likes it, it's good.

The real problem here is that everyone today can be an artist.

>>5381271
There's no official criteria for it. People like op will get all mad about it but it has always been about what the group you are interested in though. There was a time when "good art" meant "imitates the greeks", and there was a time when it meant "it calms you down" and there was a boom of british gardening. With the actual plurality its just a matter of finding your place and an audience among the extensive variety.
Unless you wanna get the big bucks and then you need to ignore academia and all that and just check what the galleries are having this couple of months and go for that flavor.

>>5381301
have you ever seen a clasic painting in person? There's no point of comparison with looking at a picture, and I don't even really like Benjamin. Both in technic (you can find the forst glances of impressionism all the way to the 1600) to topics (false perspectives, mirroring, changing the focus). It's only that when you work for the royalty and they want a portrait you have to be subtle in the ways you go out of line. Las Meninas is a great example.

>>5381343
I saw a video defending that the futurists back in the 1910 also had dubstep if you force you interpretation of their music a little bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l_hy33-1Yw

>>5381281
but i think a lot of minimalist painters were more meta, just commenting on art, how to use paint, what art is, how an arm, or tape, or a brush can be used, what the basic colours are. at least from reading their bios and stuff they said they were doing. To me that is boring

Their paintings often refer to nothing, and are only about that specific painting

>>5381357
>With the actual plurality its just a matter of finding your place and an audience among the extensive variety.
This seems to be the right direction of art. You can have objective criteria of art, but the factors that you have to take account for can change and be very subjective.

Like for example, a price on a good. This pen is objectively priced at $1, that is how much it is worth on the market, you cannot debate that (try selling the pen for $2). However, the only reason why it is worth $1 is because the collection of subjective preferences and values on the pen make it arrive at an equilibrium of $1. Similarly enough, with art, Michelangelo may be an objectively good artist, but that is only because he understood his (Italian - Renaissance) audience well enough to create works that they can appreciate and understand.

>>5380236
>people DON'T agree with him
What the fuck, /lit/?

>>5381387
>>5381387
>>5381387
>>5381387
>>5381387

sorry I don't listen to online jewish universities

[/spoilers] testing[/]

>>5381398
[spoilers]testing[/]

>people are childish enough to disagree with this man
You're probably the same people who take a shit on a poem and expect to be called a genius.

Wake up call:
Objective aesthetic is real, and to reject it is to admit that you have no real understanding of art

>>5381402
testing

>>5381380
>To me it was boring
Well, they were painting for people who already had an extensive background in classic painting. There is no point in repeating old tropes just to show your variant of them. It happens in literature too.

>Their paintings often refer to nothing, and are only about that specific painting
I don't know what you're expecting from a painting. A portrait of a dead king doesn't do much more. If anything minimalism and other modern currents comment on the extensive instution of art, so they are bringing more to the table than rehashing old ideas and techniques that anyone can learn (there's this dude who makes photorealism with bic pens). It's just a... well, "next level thing" as /fa/ would say.

>>5381384
Of course every artist is tied to his context, usually when you hear someone died being ignored is just cheap revisionism. Van Ghog had a very close relationship with a lot of the iconic painters from his time in Europe, Asia and America.
I doubt that if you can paint at the level of Velazques you couldn't sell your painting for a couple tens of grands quite easily, as I doubt that someone could do a cheap Pollock imitation and get as much attention as butthurt people think.
The thing is that painting isn't like a product. Once you take out fabrication costs you can charge as much or as little as you feel it's worth, if you're a merchant you'll care a lot about that but if you're really into it for the art you'll just want to make sure you can more or less keep on living until the next work comes out. When you hear people considering art in monetary terms it should be a clear red flag that they don't really care for what their doing.

>>5381387
>>5381392
He's saying what everyone who doesn't care about classical art would say. It's a great way of getting teen students but not so good outside of the market of people who don't know or care about the subject.

>>5381407
>>5381402
>>5381398
Why in this thread?

>>5381403
>Childish enough to disagree with the argument that bwaa bwaa there's this big academia opressing us true painters.
If you can paint on the same level as great classic authors you'll shit will sell like hot cakes. If you really worry about how much money someone else is getting for doing something you don't like then you're just a jelly little child who should go back to work on that sculpting.

>>5380434
Reminder that South Vietnam was a military dictatorship because if people were allowed to vote they would've allowed the Communists to take power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfN2IvnIA4M

>Mandate Palestine
>1880

NO

>>5381403
>Objective aesthetic is real

>He really thinks this!

>>5380236
Has this guy ever fucking heard of the dichotomy between beauty and truth?

>>5381493
>do you feel inferior and envy or do you feel inferior and envy
McFly has no idea how to relate to people on the same level?

Yeah, Jews are magical and make things grow, that's why everyone tolerates them. It has nothing to do with international debt management.

>>5381154
That man is a genius among men.

Read his biography, he's quite a sage/polymath/renaissance man.

>>5381493
You have to hand it to Zionists: they simply don't give up the narrative. They realized if they just keep saying the same shit and slowly expand the lie over time they'll rewrite history and become the lie, like a Puss-in-Boots.

>>5381510
His whole idea is tied into the bullshit conservative myth that people with wealth got that wealth by being amazing beautiful powerful and generally more worthy people, implying that people without wealth are less worthy.

>>5381525
But I don't even understand the point of some of the lies. He says that people moved to Mandate Palestine in 1880 but the Mandate Palestine didn't exist until 1920. Before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire. What is the point of taking the Ottomans out of the narrative? And then of course we get to the crux of his argument, that Anti-Zionists are just ungrateful and jealous.

Imperialist European powers used the exact same justification when they colonised Africa. They said "look how we're improving the land and making jobs and capital! you savages should be grateful." I mean congrats to Zionism for making colonisation and ethnic cleansing acceptable in our enlightened times.

>>5380352
lol cool I trust the guy who thinks genocide against Muslims is the only way to stop genocide against Israelis. that's a good guy to tell me about values

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gex8DLrtTGM

>>5380236
Modern art isn't bad, its just made for other artists in mind. So of course someone unconnected from the artistry finds it bad.

>/lit/ stares into the lingering reminder that they may have wasted their money and time for bullshit that they could be better at if self taught

You are all idiots, and I love you for it.

>>5381593
Hey, isn't it interesting that he called Nasser a dictator but then does not call the Egyptian regime that signed the peace treaty dictatorial even though it was? Isn't it odd that one regime is mentioned to be dictatorial but one isn't, simply on the basis on their policy towards Israel, just like how the current Egyptian dictatorship is pro-Israel?

You can't reform art without reforming man first. Modern art is disgusting because modern man is disgusting. The preaching of good aesthetics cannot be separated from the preaching of good morals. As soon as good morals are removed from society, so will be good aesthetics.

>>5381003
>>5380982
>>5380986
>capitalism
>bad

Capitalism is what has driven the art world for much of its recorded history. Good luck painting all day without selling them (and who would buy them besides the rich) or getting sponsored (and who would sponsor besides the rich).

>>5381593
>this really complex situation
>that has interests from pretty much every nation in the world
>that goes back to ancient times
>that has been sustained on tons of arguments and propagandas to the point that even in our own site we're selling two different stories
>can be really easy to understand
>if we assume a group of people is decided to kill the other just because they want to kill them really much
What's the deal with this guys and a lack of general context? Do countries just float in an apolitical sea?

>>5381664
Read a fucking history book. Jesus. Society wasn't always like it's today, you know?

>>5381658
Art pre-dates capitalism.

>>5381506
Apollo Belvedere's body is objectively more aesthetic than the Elephant Man's, get over it. Denying that objective aesthetics exists means denying that objective reality exists.

>>5381658
No. Stop it. There are people doing Classic style paintings and they will always be, it just has no inherent value because the art context has changed and evolved. They still live more than happily doing cool images that people love. There is no divide in the art world between modern and classic.

>>5381671
Meant to reply to >>5381664

>>5381675
Objective reality has nothing to do with human interpretation. Art is purely human by definition, and as such it can't be meassured.
But you can go and ask any economy major how well those perfect mathematical calculations are doing with controlling the market.

>>5380236
>Muh nakid emperer
Welcome to Capitalism, fagget.

>>5381675
yeah disagreeing with someone about whether or not a painting is good is basically the same thing as disagreeing with somebody about whether you're sitting on a couch or not.

>>5381593
"Muslims only understand violence therefore we have to kill all of them."

>>5381664
>Capitalism is what has driven the art world for much of its recorded history.
Actually no, patronage is what drove the finest art ever created. Patronage from theocracies and monarchies.

Dumb nigger.

>>5380339
There's some serious SCIENCE going on there.

>>5381658
This.

However, not all people today are disgusting, which is why there's still really good art being made, most of it from Hollywood and AAA video game developers. So it's best not to worry about reforming any of the low class degenerates and to simply focus on where the only true artistic elite still exists.

>>5381706
>Hollywood and AAA video game developers
>really good art

>>5381698
I kek'd

>>5381704
>the y axis is "STANDARDS"
like, there is a smaller number during time? There were like 2 or 3 more during 1850?

>>5381699
>Patronage from theocracies and monarchies.
>not capitalism

>>5381658
Oh come on, don't be so Platonistic. There's not a single Good, there are many different ways an art piece can be good, even as a display of "bad morals" - precisely if it manages to display them as such.

>>5381348
that's not a problem at all

>>5381727
It's very complicated intellectual stuff, you wouldn't understand.

>>5381348
that's a good thing.

>>5381348
Like how is it even possible for someone to be this elitist?

>>5380236

>that Palestinian conflict video

Well atleast we know he's biased, and Jewish.

/pol/ was right again I supoose

>>5381769
How many STANDARDS do you use to understand it?

>>5381734

>there are many different ways an art piece can be good

People who already believe this sincerely wouldn't have any problems with modern art to begin with though.

The rest of your post I don't buy, because art doesn't need to be "bad" by premodern aesthetic standards to meaningfully explore the issue of "badness" (again, according to premodern aesthetic standards). The fact is that premodern art almost never looks on what it designates badness with sympathy, and modern/"postmodern" art frequently does.

The real reason why modern artists are not in concert with premodern aesthetic standards is because they are majority alienated, unsuccessful members of society (just like everyone else!), forced into positions which do not allow for them to sympathize with such moral ideals. The Iliad speaks movingly of the great valor and great wrath of Achilles because it came from a person who, though not a warrior-king himself, could respect the notion of a warrior-king and speak of him with "divine sympathy", through the instrumentality of the Muse. The modern artist doesn't have any notion that is safe for him to respect, because nothing such exists in the modern world. "His hands grasp no branch, his feet rest on no limb." This is why moral/political traditionalism has such a strong distaste for modern art, they attempt to revive such notions in themselves and consequently find work without this idealistic basis wanting.

>>5381077
but then your values are constantly changing because what makes me happy today I may get bored with tomorrow. So ok my only value is hapiness is the most important thing.
>>5381189
Yea I get that. But if you think about it you won't want to live a life without being happy with it so love, money, and morals/values are just what you choose to give you hapiness. This isn't 100 pages but it makes sense nonetheless

>>5381733
>money is capitalism

>>5381820
>People who already believe this sincerely wouldn't have any problems with modern art to begin with though.
Yes they would. The idea that there are multiple ways that things can be good doesn't mean "hurr durr anything goes lol". Why would it? It seems like you think that anything outside of belief in absolute and single good is complete relativism. Have some more refinement.

>>5381824
(I'm the second poster)
No, it doesn't make sense.
Imagine I find very little happyness in life. Money and love are only things because there is a lack of what they represent, if you had all your needs met and no new ones created as you go you wouldn't care about money and if love was also a given you wouldn't feel a need to strive for it. They have value because you have grown in a society that has taught you that way. In the same vain morals and values are at best relative, if not empty words to conglomerate complex feelings that are only similar among people at surface level.
That's just a single silly paragraph, I'm sure there could be counter arguments that would make me change my opinion in a different direction. But still, any idea about absolute factores needs to take in consideration so many possibilites that you need to analyze tons of variables to give a more or less decent conclusion. That's why most philosophers went with one or more books for single items in life like love or justice. Otherwise you're doing nothing.

>>5381859

Anything outside of belief in absolute and single good is literally relativism by definition, man. I don't have a dog in this fight myself, I like whatever I like and don't give a fuck about whether it exalts the bad or not, and to be honest I think that that's what most people do regardless of whether they claim to like modern art or not. Your point still doesn't make sense because nobody is saying that premodern aesthetics all share the same idea of the good, the axis of morality of the Iliad is completely opposed to that of the Gospel of John for example. My comment is specifically on the point of sympathy for what is identified by artist and audience alike as bad being the turn-off for traditionalist types in the area of modern art.

>>5381859
If we had refinment we would be writing for mid level art theory magazines instead of posting in /lit/ while searching for something fap worthy in /s/ and listening to an episode of mission hill.

Is it possible to come up with an actual definition of what can be called art or not? In my opinion, good part (if not all) of the artistic value of a piece comes from each individual's perspective on that piece, so it's not the artist (as the creator) or the audience as a whole that give an art piece its legitimacy, but the personal experience each person had with that specific work, including the artist himself, as he is someone who obviously got involved with his own work.

>>5381889
I hope I get to see Rothko's paintings one day.

>>5381901
>pic
That's actually pretty neat btw. No idea what the fuck that guy's complaining about.

lel

>>5381889
>Anything outside of belief in absolute and single good is literally relativism by definition, man.
Yes, but not a complete one. Just a very simple example: what you see as good is relative to your perception. Your perception is to a large extent shaped socially. There are social issues that people in society are all related to. The last two statements already give you enough material for differentiating between good and bad art. Some art is simply irrelevant.

>>5380388
>women civilize men
hehehe I don't think so

>>5381914
I agree. I've seen it in person, and I found it far more interesting than when I saw the Mona Lisa in person.

>>5381914
I don't really get where the artist is coming from there, but I find it interesting too. Also, the support shelves apparently weren't supposed to be there on the initial concept, so that the rock would look like it's levitating when looking at it from beneath, hence the name "levitated rock".

>>5381915
>playtime can wait
ew, filthy WASP work ethics

>>5381917

Irrelevant to you, you mean? Because it seems to me that even to be created, art has to be relevant to one person at least. I don't personally see any grounds for dismissing art in stronger terms than "I did not like it" and elaborating why. I suspect that this also a common behavior, but when you have no time to chat it is easier to say "it was bad".

>>5381903

Rothko Chapel is really cool place, I enjoyed the fuck out of my visit.

>>5381935
The name is actually Levitated Rock, sorry for the typo.

>>5381884
I get that it's not cemented in stone, but while you can give arguments against love, money and moral values from the top of your head (like you just did), you can't really counter that hapiness is the end all of life. Maybe you say "only because I lack knowledge, but in a structured argument you'd find holes in that theory". Well maybe so but I am yet to do so.

>>5381901
Well, the idea that art is a circuit that closes when the public interprets the work has been around since the 20's. In most schemes art critic, academia and advertizement work as cloud around both the work and the audience, affecting how it is taken by the public but without direct interferences with the work itself.
I think it was Hegel, but I might be wrong, who stated a certain criteria for what could generally be considered art, it is:
1º It was created with the intention of being art
It was a concious effort to set that item as a work of art. Nature isn't art, but as soon as you refer to something as art you are applying your intention over it (Picasso once sold a signed milk crate and said that in the future the artists will just have to point at something to legitimize as art)
2º It has to have intelectual content
It has to communicate something, either obvious stuff like jesus tied to a jet plain or subtle stuff like a minimalist painting commenting on the brushing in painting.
Art can have content without the artist intention, though, because everything a human makes carries an intention and a message. Saying nothing is even a message.
3º It has to be recognized as art by peers
This one seems to put too much power in academia, but you have to understand that most institutions besides big european museums weren't a thing until the second half of the twentieth century. Univeristies and galleries didn't exist at a global level, and if we give them any importance now is because they validated themselves through artists recognizing their value. It's a reciprocation kind of deal.
I have to go to class, but later I'll check my notes to see who said this in case you really care.

>>5381921
Thye should just say no and everything would be right. Fucking women that can't say no and keep chasing me, just let me work on my lion fighting already!

>>5381948
Happyness could be a byproduct of other things, you can be happy during horrible times.
Shouldn't you be readin Derrida or Sartre or something for better considerations about the end of all life?

>>5381379
>VCOs, VCFs
that guy doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about

Even though this video is pretty silly, you cannot argue with the fact that shit like Pollack or Duchamp is ridiculous. You cannot say that a white canvas, a canvas that has random paint marks all over it that are not logical, a canvas with shapes, or a fucking urinal is comparable to that of even early impressionist painters.

I get emotional when I look at good art without needing an explanation for some shit. I don't want to have to read something to make me understand why someone would paint a canvas white. Modern art cannot provide a feeling more powerful than when you look up in the Sistine Chapel, and I'm not even religious.

when ib't goed wronj...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roaPPVuH7aU

>>5381710
The only good things come from them. A lot of mediocre shit might come from them too, but it's nothing BUT mediocre shit coming from everyone else.

>>5381493
Holy shit is thig nig for real???

>>5381974
It's one of those "it's not meant for you, mate" kind of deals. It's art for people who already digested a huge amount of art. It's okay, not everything has to be for everyone or we would be complaining to astrophysicist that their math to understand black holes is silly and that it doesn't compare to actually seeing jupiter with your own eyes, that it doesn't inspire you at the same level and that it probably doesn't even make sense.

>>5381914
It's a rock.

>>5381966
Yes I agree with you. Times can be hard, but if you still manage to be happy (maybe you lower your standards on what makes you happy), that's all that matters.
I still haven't started with the greeks as I only started reading in february and I'm very displeased with my pace.

>>5381951
Interesting, thanks a lot for the input, anon. I'll do some research to find out whether or not it was Hegel who came up with that definition, but I would appreciate it if you look it up later. Something I consider to be an issue nowadays is that the art community, especially when it comes to critics, make the general public opinion on art be much more homogeneous than it should be.

>>5380236
Wait what is wrong with what he says?
Modern art truly is shit.

After photography, people grew tired of classical paintings. Not saying that makes scatalogical paintings valid, but to say every painting needs to be pre-raphaelite is fucking retarded. Not everyone wants to read Tolkien-fantasy, for fucks sake.

>>5381928
The Mona Lisa is more famous for it's physical history than it is for being an innovative and moving piece of art

God tier
>people with a coherent theory of aesthetics who can explain how a piece of art they like fits into it

Respectable tier
>people with no coherent theory of aesthetics who don't claim to know what constitutes art but will admit to liking something

Undergrad "I have strong opinions about various topics, debate me" tier
>people who say art is subjective
>people who say art is objective without actually elaborating a theory of aesthetics, instead relying on pointing at the Mona Lisa and TAMPON FART DILDO STILLBIRTH BUDDHA #37 and shouting "COME ON!" repeatedly, as if the objective quality of the former is self-evident from their emotional attachment to it and its cultural cache, thus provoking the subjectivist faggots to be transgressive-for-the-sake-of-transgressive even more and perpetuating the cycle of shit

Absolute retard tier
>people who think Jackson Pollock is an artist

>>5381914
Neat does not make art.

>>5382062
Ok, I can agree to that to an extent, now please tell me what does.

>>5382062
>Neat does not make art.

Actually it does.

>>5382055
Respectable tier reporting in!

How do I into aesthetics? Should I just grab something by Danto?

>>5382055
Idiot tier:
>people who believe in the good art vs bad art dichotomy and are personally offended by the idea that context, including that which comes from subjective experience matters

>>5382079
Beauty and truth I'd say. A subtile message, an emotion, something that speaks for itself without the need of someone to explain to you what the autor meant.
But I guess I do need to work on my aesthetics theory. So I'll just dropp it, lets just say its my opinion and that I am not that well read when it comes to that.

>>5382055
More than God tier
>people who know the issue is a pure semantics problem

>>5382094
the answer is very simple, anon

schopenhauer

>>5382114
>implying language can capture aesthetics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T_P14JjMcM&list=PLIBtb_NuIJ1w9rrlXRueM3opfoV0rUenS

high quality channel here

He has a point.

I could probably call up some pretentious art institution and talk them into letting me shit out a diarrhoea caked dildo as live performance art.

>>5382160
I think that was already done.

>>5382164
I mean I could get them to pay me.


An arab sheikh modern art collector could even pay me $10 million to do it on his forehead.

>>5382169
The question is do you have dignity and are you pretencious?

>>5382102
The idea of context doesn't remove good vs. bad art dichotomy. And it's not dichotomy in the first place, it is a scale.

>>5382130
fuckin solved, god exists. anyone who disagrees probably went to a shit-tier university with clasrooms and stuff

>>5382130
I like how he completely disregards the logical: what created god then.
fucking religious people when will they learn

>>5382055
how's undergrad tier working out for you?

>>5382104
>truth

what is 'truth' in art?

>A subtile message, an emotion, something that speaks for itself without the need of someone to explain to you what the autor meant.

this doesn't apply to any classically-inspired art

>>5382025
>After photography, people grew tired of classical paintings.

no, they grew tired of it before photography

>>5381675
>Apollo Belvedere's body is objectively more aesthetic than the Elephant Man's, get over it.

because it adheres to the principles of antiquity, which is what our society is largely based on - that is to say it appears 'objectively aesthetic' to you because you haven't been taught any other way of analysing art

if you knew anything of art history you would know that the standards on which art is judged change drastically over time.

>>5381967
no surprise there

>>5381974
>you cannot argue with the fact that shit like Pollack or Duchamp is ridiculous.
yes you can and a lot of people already have

>>5381994
I see nothing escapes you.

>>5381901
>Is it possible to come up with an actual definition
Yes.

Definitions are arbitrary, so you can come up with any definition you'd like. However, they're ultimately shaped with their intent in mind, as groundworks for solving specific problems. The real problem, however, that there is no relevant "Problem of Art", i.e. there's no interest in categorizing what is art, and what is not (necessary conquence of the concept of "Art" is – "not-Art"). Thus people prefer to conflate aesthetic and phenomenological impressions with "Art", despite the fact that every single thing can cause them, and only refer back to "Art" in order to contrast it with "Kitsch", and from there on smear whoever they want.

>>5380236
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOWQbRt8FbY

IDEOLOGY INTENSIFIES())*)(I()I)(I()I)I)I)I)I)I)I(I(I(I)I)(I(I()(I)I)I)I)(I()I)(I

>>5383003
jesus christ. this is the most awful/beautiful youtube channel I've seen since I discovered that Koch-funded one.

I want to make a response video to that last one saying that there aren't enough murderous communists in academia and the ratio of average leftists to violent Marxists needs to get closer to 1:1

>>5382094
Hegel has some cool stuff but it may be offputting.
Hans Gregor Gadamer has an interesting work analyzing outside of the european canon the idea of art as a celebration, as a game and as something selse, exposing how human creations and art mix in most aspects of hour lives.

>>5382336
Aquinas made like 14 possible expalantions to that question. Reading a synopsis would take less than hearing a video and would make more sense, even though this is supposed to quote them and have a teacher to explain them.

>>5382160
no, you couldn't. if you could some 4channer would had done it already. instead we drink jenkem

>>5380869
The academic painters suck because they were afraid to show vaginas

>>5382185
>it is a scale
lol
yeah, why don't you put all raphale paintings in that scale and then add davincis. if you have a scale then everything has to go there.

>>5382269
>university
>with classrooms
>and stuff
pleb x2000

>>5382396
no, painting was never for the common man. if you were royalty yes, you already were pretty sick of generic paintings but you still had you gardens and sculptures and greek shit. if you were a peasant you had your dead by pneumonia and you better be grateful.

>>5383472
yay for big sloppy vaginas
yay for degeneracy

>>5383487
I take ti you prefer little boy penises you pedo

>>5383003
>liberal bias
>even the right wingers are more liberal
>never considers why teachers have that tendency
It's as if the channel was aimed to scam republicans!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager#Prager_.22University.22

>>5383497
>not preferring big juicy uncut cock

>>5381951
So, I checked and I wrote Hegel somewhere in the page but I don't see how I correlate it to that.
Also, what I posted as second is more on the vein of "it has to be selfcontained", meaning that the understanding of the work should depend of another work or knowledge about that particular artist or his presence next to the work explaining what he meant.
If people are interested I could make some sort of art phil thread tomorrow or something, I should be preparing a couple of general aesthetics related classes and translating my notes could be a considerable study method.

>>5383521
I do, but I enjoy cunts just as much, and feel they deserve to be depicted in painting.

>>5383525
I don't agree with your thoughts but I could never say that we don't need more depictions of vaginas. Maybe some adult cocks here and there, maybe some near the afformentioned vaginas but many also standing proudly on their own.

>>5383474
>no, painting was never for the common man.

the rejection of the classical, academic style (the beginnings of romanticism) happened towards the end of the 18th century. photography was invented in 1839.

>>5383552
There are enough penises. We need more cunts.

99% of modern art is pure shit.

This guy in on the ball.

>>5383628
No, fuck off, faggot

>>5383631
nah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6adVQrSUAc

This "University" posits that modern art is bad and that capitalism "works", without any sort of understanding of how capitalism (which gave rise to postmodernism in the 60's-70's) is largely responsible for the current state of art.

How anyone could take any of these videos seriously is beyond me. The founder is Christian AM radio talk show host, for fuck's sake.

>>5383656
>"altruism is the very reason for capitalism's existence"

WHY CANT I HOLD ALL THIS IDEOLOGY?

>>5383656
So business owners can't be greedy because they do stuff for other people and save their money for long term? How the fuck is saving money against being greedy?

>>5383656
So business owners can't be greedy because they do stuff for other people and save their money for long term? How the fuck is saving money against being greedy?

>>5383685
I'm sure everyone designing new phones aren't greedy fucks and went through this.

>>5383656
>what is planned obsolescence

>>5383656
>using as example steve jobs
>wealthy family
>selling xerox designs

>>5383699

Nonsense.

>>5381658
is this a serious post

>>5381992
I like this analogy

>>5383656
oh wow it's the maximally reductive version of subjective value theory.

these pieces of shit are such insults to people who really study economics, a complicated subject that this guy does not understand at all

>>5383721
It's a wrong one, but the best I could make. Math is quantifiable.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtBvQj2k6xo

"Try this at your next party, ask your guests to define 'social justice'."

Gee these guys sure sound like fun to be around.

>>5383736
This guy just reduced "social justice" to dollar signs

IIIIIISSSSS THISSSS REEAALLLLL????????

>>5383656
This channel thoroughly upsets me

Oh look it's time to graduate from Prager University already, /lit/.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEmBCiEnREQ

>>5383805
>I don't recall ever coming across a valid study that contravenes my views

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsiAd2nT8Z8

>>5383805
>psychiatry in charge of biology.

>>5383805
I can't keep up with this shit man

>>5383805
what is a truism? is that even a word?

>>5383805
>Judeo-Christian faith is the TRUE counter-culture in America today

This has to be a joke.

>>5383837
>In philosophy, a sentence which asserts incomplete truth conditions for a proposition may be regarded as a truism.
Oh, well, that sounds quite a respectable thing.

>>5383805
I just added "Prager University graduate" to my resume on Linkedin and three job recruiters immediately contacted me and asked to suck my dick.

>>5383860
>job recruiters

I think you mean 'job creators'.

>>5383805
For the most part, I agree with this.

>>5383840
it's no joke. there are mandatory national holidays because of the true counter-culture.

>>5383805
did he just try and assure his students they are not racist?

>>5383656
>How anyone could take any of these videos seriously is beyond me.
It's because they're fucking Americans and they don't know better because they were brainwashed as youngsters to believe this shit.

>>5383976
Woah slow down there friend, I'm pretty sure many Americans don't buy this either

>>5383976
It's only American baby-boomers that like and believe the shit being espoused in these videos. The same type of people that legitimately believe Obama is a Muslim Marxist.

>>5384083
>Obama is a Muslim Marxist

He's also the Antichrist, Hitler, and was born in Kenya.

>>5383992
As an American I assure you they do.
>>5384083
>It's only American baby-boomers that like and believe the shit being espoused in these videos.
They teach their kids and at least half of them believe it, and even many of the ones that don't believe all of it still carry some sense that America and capitalism are the only thing keeping the world spinning. The average adult American has a 5th grade reading level, less then 60% have a library card, and spends 5 hours every day watching television (where they get almost all of their 'non-fiction' information) with thousands of channels owned by 5 companies.

Art turned to shit when Jackson Pollock left Michaelangelo's studio to invent photography for money and destroyed any reason to make pictures. Now he was killed and Pollock has to thank for everyone farting and calling it art. Where are the classical artists like Monet? or Blake? When people had values.

>>5384124
>watch tv
Real american teens watch lets plays and movie reviews on the youtubes, get on with the times, old maaaaan.

>>5384124
>America and capitalism are the only thing keeping the world spinning
This is literally true

>>5383784
Same here. It's not like, say, Glenn Beck or Fox News, where it's so ridiculous that you have to just laugh. This shit is legitimately infuriating.

>>5383840
No. look around you. The only way to rebel is to be a decent human being and believe in some form of religion.

Isn't art just the personal expresion of oneself? If they aren't expressing themselves, then it isn't art, right? Modern art, just like any other time, has people who are using it for greed and attention, but, those have always been the minority, it would be rather atrocious to believe all modern art is there simply to grab attention to the artist and not the work. It is very improbable that EVERY modern artist is out there for a cash grab, but, I have an idea, why don't we try to work on this? I mean, Isn't what we express beautiful to ourselves? You don't have to share your art with any one, we do so just to share our thoughts. (Or other reasons. I am new to this. Sorry for my rather holed argument good people. OH! And I probably sound very full of my self.. Sorry about that as well!)

>>5384200
>Isn't art just the personal expresion of oneself?

no

>>5384200
I know you think you live in a bubble where nothing exists outside of what you know, but just like there are guys in /lit/ dedicating 8 hours+ daily to books there are people doing the same with painting, sculpting and whatnot. If you feel your personal experience is enough to validate your opinion it's cool, but you are jumping ahead of thousands of years with complete trust that you're taking more considerations than everyone else.

>>5384184
>religion makes you a decent human being

Clearly not since approximately 75% of the US is Christian or Jewish.

>>5384179
underrated post

>>5381798

>>5382336
i don't want to begin a debate, but special pleading isn't a fallacy when there is a case of logical necessity for it to occur

>>5381516
>the Zodiac Kills were faked
>Facebook is of course a DARPA
creation, used for direct and easy intel gathering

/x/ as fuck

>>5384211
*America sustains capitalism, which continues to dominate the world through different shades of violence

>>5383003

>>5384284
I really don't wanna go this way, but I'm already writing this so I'll at least sage.
>Zodiac Killer
There was very little evidence of there even being one single zodiac killer and america has a history of false flags to make its institutions look better. It might as well be a promotion for the FBI. It's as much of a chance as a superkiller that appears once every century.

>Facebook and DARPA
While it's way more probable that facebook was just an enterprise that was taken by the CIA there is enough evidence to consider it pretty much a government tool:
>Openly giving data to the CIA
>Suddenly changing from not being able to have a decent interface to having facial recognition
>The US government already did pretty much with a pre twitter service in cuba destined to instill revolts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/white-house-cuban-twitter_n_5087702.html
So, you know, it's something to take in consideration.

>>5381525
i find it odd that /lit/ is anti-israel, you guys sound like /pol/ except with a shit taste in art, all modernism is bullshit.

>>5383840

Hell nah nigga. Conservatism is now the counter culture.

>>5384284
A lot of it seems a bit out there, but there are some very salient points made in that particular essay--especially how museums are using modern art as to line the pockets of museum directors and government entities.

Cost to produce "art"= 200$
Price art is sold for= 50mil

You gotta be kidding me. Something way fishier is going on, and it's finally out.

>>5384372
>anti-israel

Who in his right mind *isn't* anti-Israel? Have you even fucking read the Talmud?

>>5384372
/lit/ does it best to not be anything. Israel is famous for having three or four narratives and constantly repeating them even when the conditions make them meaningless, like in this case "they just wanted to get the rich land we made out of their land thanks to how cool we are". Particular users may be more oriented to one thinking or another, though.

>>5384200
The problem is that art criticism today is pretty much dead because of everyone's attitude towards art, their definitions and beliefs regarding it, and what kind of art is being produced.

It wasn't just a matter of "I'm making a statement, I like it, therefore it is art" prior to the 20th century, it was also a matter of "I am the most skilled craftsman in the entire country, I am improving on the techniques and concepts of the greatest craftsmen before me, I am creating something that will be directly enjoyed and endorsed by the king/whoever is the ruling caste, and satisfying all these requirements while also fulfilling my own desires will make it known as art." And with that mindset, works of art were very much comparable, and comparing works of art was encouraged; but now, it is always discouraged, because everyone lives in a fucking bubble thinking that all of life is subjective and this somehow gives them the excuse to be ignorant and toss aside the entirety of history even though life being subjective gives you even MORE a reason to become incredibly educated in history, because if life is subjective then it stands to reason that your perspective is defined by where you stand (i.e. how much you know and how many experiences you have) and perspectives are thus comparable in themselves. Which is why art was much better than it used to be, because the artists back then were interested in obtaining the HIGHEST perspectives possible for the sake of creating art that the ruling caste would enjoy (i.e. the most learned, most modern people in the world), while artists today are concerned with throwing out history textbooks and taking a big shit on a canvas in front of a live audience. The artists surrounding galleries and universities today are not concerned about being modern in the slightest, which is exactly why they're producing shit that looks like a caveman could do it and bears as much significance as a picture of a caveman sticking his dick in a goat.

>>5384437
>Who in his right mind *isn't* anti-Israel?
the kind of people with brains.
>Have you even fucking read the Talmud?
no, and neither have you. what you read was image macros on the internet.

>>5385533
>Which is why art was much better than it used to be
I meant "is much worse".

>>5385533
You are saying all of that without any real studying of art history, a very poor understandign of just general history, and also no attempt to contact or interact with modern art critic. It's pretty much the same mas /pol/'s idea of politics, it might touch a couple of real ideas or competent points, but the reassoning behind it is poor if there's anything beyond popular culture and an unwarranted feeling of superiority iver people who decided to dedicated their lives to it. I'll go through some points of your argument, but you have to understand that your are complaining about people that you only know through what popular culture told you.

>t wasn't just a matter of "I'm making a statement, I like it, therefore it is art" prior to the 20th century
It has never been, maybe the only one who insisted on that was Warhol and for all the recognition he got there was a far deal of rejected stuff and government money. The art world to this day doesn't really give a crap about Warhol and almost no artist gives a crap about his work, in Europe the states at that time were represented by Francis Bacon and you had it better that way.

>it was also a matter of "I am the most skilled craftsman in the entire country, I am improving on the techniques and concepts of the greatest craftsmen before me, I am creating something that will be directly enjoyed and endorsed by the king/whoever is the ruling caste, and satisfying all these requirements while also fulfilling my own desires will make it known as art."
Not really. From the renassance onwards the idea was validation through mimicry. If you wanted to do something different you were a piece of shit. Every progress after the illustration was completly slowed down by the idea that if you weren't doing things a certain way (the greek way) you were wrong and should shut up. There was very little space for expression in art, that includes the use of any new technique or style. Everything had to be stale.
Most work was then tossed somewhere. Working for the high class meant pretty much the same as if any art now would be what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet decide is art, I don't know how that could be a decent criteria.

>works of art were very much comparable, and comparing works of art was encouraged
Not comparing, direct copy.

>it is always discouraged, because everyone lives in a fucking bubble
Not really, most art sutendts learn all the same techniques they could had learned 200 years ago. If some waste their time and don't try is just like studying economics without networking, stupid students are everywhere. But trust me, academia expects you to be able to re paint historical paintings, I doubt I've seen El Prado without someone painting a Goya. They even tell you what marks to do so you can't pass them off as black market imitations.

>gives you even MORE a reason to become incredibly educated in history,
You should teach with the example.

(cont)

>>5385748
>>5385533
>because the artists back then were interested in obtaining the HIGHEST perspectives possible for the sake of creating art that the ruling caste would enjoy
Would Bill Gates be the best to understand what makes art valuable? Would the marine general of your chosing be so?
When art is done for artists it becomes a close bubble, yeah, a close bubble of people interested in the subject who are open to new comers and have publications where they share and discuss eahc others opinions. When you let someone who lives in the military bubble (as any decent king had) or the economic bubble (as any burgoise would had) you are making art the slave of other intentions and other bubbles.

>while artists today are concerned with throwing out history textbooks and taking a big shit on a canvas in front of a live audience.
I don't know how many artists you've met. Are you sure that you aren't repeating a small fringe movement of people that get public attention because they fullfill a bias and help sell the idea that art is bad and you should study economics? Because I'm pretty sure a lot more people reject academia for the artists that get space on tv than for real reassons.
Do you know how many artists have used shit as subject for their work? I can only think of three people, worldwide. Do you know the percentage that means? You're judging modern art the same way you'd be judging everything done in television in the last 20 years buy one advertisement that someone else made you see.

>The artists surrounding galleries and universities today are not concerned about being modern in the slightest, which is exactly why they're producing shit that looks like a caveman could do it and bears as much significance as a picture of a caveman sticking his dick in a goat.
Again, most college that have a mesum neraby will make the kids re paint girl with a pearl earing or the meninas to the brush size and movement. Some of them will be shitheads and think they are better tha the world, there are stupid people everywhere all the time. If you chose to judge based on a fringe group that you have never met then you're having a completly unjustifiable opinion.

I hope I haven't been too obnoxious or anything. Really, the art world isn't a closed place that wants the commoner to stay away because they couldn't get it. If anything it's the contrary to that, most museums have people just to guide you through the evolution of whatever aspect you want to see and open for free days, or passes for students, or promoted exhibitions, or stuff. If anyone is against classical art is the people saying that we should be doing the same instead of just going and ejoying the art that already exists.

>>5385563
>the kind of people with [unthinking] brains.
Zionism can only hold itself up by complete devotion to the ideology. It is a reactionary fundamentalist cult subservient to the global capitalist cult. Notice: Zionists =/= Jews. /pol/, please get fucked.

It's bizarre how this "good/bad" "is art/isn't art" debate has perpetuated itself. I think it's because culturally we are still raised to believe some art is good and some art is bad, and some things can be art and some things can't be.

In reality, there isn't really an objective barometer of value, and art is simply an arbitrary definition - I personally view art as being expression of self. A lot of people will say "well, that means ANYTHING can be art".

Yeah, it does, and there isn't anything wrong with that. It only appears annoying because these people continue to think within a traditional "bad/good", "is/isn't" model of thought.

>>5385928
You can define by yourself what's art just as you can define by yourself what's astronomy and say that it is looking through a telescope. Just because your definition touches in aspects of the act doesn't mean that there isn't more than enough serious debate about the subject. People chose to learn through what they ahve seen on tv and pretend they have a real world idea of something, but the "what is art" debate is no more meaningful than people asking in dfw was a hipster.

>>5385873
I honestly don't care much which political shape zionism tends to, be it left or right. Israel's existence is an end in itself.

>>5385992
States don't have rights to exist.

>>5380236

>>5385873
i live in israel. i was raised as a jew, until my early teenage years when I realized that there is no God.

I am not a Zionist, but that's only because I'm generally aginst nationalism.
I want to tell you that what you wrote is bullshit, and that Zionism is no less immoral then any other national movement, on the contrary, if you are familiar with the history of national movements you will get to the realization that in the circumstances in which she was born (the existence of separate ethnic and religious group who saw the Jews as enemies), their actions and history of pretty moral relativety.

>>5386003
True, but I did not even mention such a right, did I?

>>5386034
Jacob?

>>5386003
Yes they do, by right of force, just like any individual. You're deluded if you believe in human rights that is not backed up by threat of violence.

>>5386049
States aren't persons

>>5385748
>>5385817
>You are saying all of that without any real studying of art history
Bad way to start your argument.

>It has never been, maybe the only one who insisted on that was Warhol
And Piero Manzoni, Marcel Duchamp, and just about all the other "conceptual artists," and to a lesser extent the Expressionists who heralded personal expression above everything (read: "I like it, therefore it is art") and the Impressionists who were doing a very similar thing as the Expressionists but were at a too early of a stage to realize it about themselves. So no, this is not a small thing, this is a long-standing attitude about art that has undeniably had a major impact on everyone. The very ideas behind Impressionism and Expressionism are incredibly bogus and shortsighted.

>From the renassance onwards the idea was validation through mimicry. If you wanted to do something different you were a piece of shit.
>Not comparing, direct copy.
Artists did something different and more complex every century and nearly every century bore significant progress in the arts, especially in painting and music, so I don't know where you're getting this from. To assert this is to deny, for instance, all the complex development music went through from the 1400s to the 1800s from Josquin des Prez and Palestrina to Bach and Monteverdi, to Haydn, to Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner...

>Working for the high class meant pretty much the same as if any art now would be what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet decide is art, I don't know how that could be a decent criteria.
It's not the same. Politics have changed, economics have changed, the structure of society is not the same as it once was. Thus morals have changed for everyone. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are nothing like yesterday's individuals of the higher echelons of society. The only thing remotely close to that today would be working for the biggest names in Hollywood or the biggest companies in other entertainment industries, but even they are a far cry from the past.

>You're judging modern art the same way you'd be judging everything done in television in the last 20 years buy one advertisement that someone else made you see.
Eh, hardly. Because not only were there entire movements based on that same fundamental stupidity and shortsightedness as I had mentioned above with Impressionism and Expressionism, but constantly you can find people parroting that same nonsense about art. I had a minor in art when I was in college and all the art classes I took at least 3/4 of the students had already adopted the same attitude as the Impressionists and the Expressionists had, and online, forget about it—it's practically all you see from people. And that's a problem, because we live in a very democratic society at this time, and under a democracy it's not the right voice but the loudest voice that gets heard.

>>5386157
>Bad way to start your argument.
I know, I know. The thread has gone way too long for me, I'd prefer to tap out but it just keep appearing on page 1 and I'm a cheap junkie.

>Duchamp
He has extensive work outside of ready mades, those were a comment on the presence of art in the day to day life. Just like Picasso, who once sold a milk crate but also reinvented time in painting.

>the ideas behind expresionism and impressionism
How about the ideas behind classical paintings and the rediscover of greek art? There barely was any intention behind those works in conceptual terms. And you're forgetting that the enjoyment of the piece has always been the basis for its quality, those two currents just specialized on art beyond copying the beauty that "god created".
I'm not sure of your point here. If anything those two currents have a great middle ground of inventing technics, being aesthetic for most viewers and having ideas behing them. How do they relate to your point?

>Art as evolution
Music is not something I'm very versed at, so you'll have to bare a little slowness when we touch those subjects but I really want to get a bigger picture.
Is music really a progressive thing before Mozart standardizing european practices and partitures? (again, I'm really asking, I barely know) I get the feeling that there is a clear evolutive path only if you chose the musicians who took from a particular one, like a family tree.
But technical evolutions like passing from pentatonic to heptatonic had different results in different countries and a lot of them were only recognized well into the XX century like Vivaldi. It's not such a straight evolution as soon as you stop taking in consideration the people who particularly chose to work over someone else they personally knew.
Still, I feel classical music finds a different problem with modern audiences. Don't you think you need a particular education to apreciate the full extent of an orchesta beyond the "tune"? Don't you think a lot of modern musicians who want to create on top of classical works breaking older limitations find the same dificulties that painters that feel we need to move on after classic paintings?
In a separate topic, I got really into serialism and Olivier Messiaen at some point but I couldn't really work my way around him to find other authors. Do you have at hand any reference that could help me? Any rec would be cool I guess.

>People used to be smarter
I'm not so sure about that. Maybe in the cleric ambit you'd find people who were really into learning and stuff, but books were more of a status thing than a tool to learn. It's a thorny road to try to see how money and art related through history, I doubt it has too much importance. But working for a specialized audience that has access to the same learning that the artist had will always be better than creating for someone who has no idea of the subject.(cont)

>>5386157
(contuing with audiences)
I read* that operas used to have empty first acts because the audience liked arriving late so they could pay attention to them and composers needed to take that in consideration. I doubt Wagner could had done what he did if he had to keep taking in consideration that he was worth shit for the audience.

>stupid people being stupid
Yeah, it's a problem. More reason to concentrated on a specialized public. I wanna think we're having a decent talk here, even though we're not only in modern times but also in the CP free haven bulletin-form social gathering.
I doubt shortsightedness is something to take in consideration when analyzing movements, if anything the problem is thinking that previous artist have some dept with future generations when they did what they did for themselves just like we can. It's the next generation the one that has to see what was done before and picking up what was worthy, just like it happened with music in europe during the middle ages or with painting post illustration. Dissing your contemporary isn't gonna add anything to any canon, only working on top of what you feel should remain is of any help for the future.

*In the count of montechristo, it wasn't the best of sources.

>>5385533
>>5385748
>>5385817
>>5386157
>>5386214
>>5386233
Can I just say how nice it is to see some intelligent shit on /lit, thanks

>>5381154
>outrageous paranoia and blind self-confidence
You mean keen insight and warranted self-confidence of a man who fights for good?

>>5380388
this makes sense, of course young sluts will all have the same story as this woman when they hit their 40's and are still single. in the meantime fuck the top 20% of men and fuck everything up

>>5380339
gotta love that vertical axis

"standars"

>>5380349
>The greatest artists of the 21th century is the con artists that construced the modern liberal arts education programmes.
this

>>5383805
so, don't blame society of your problems unless you are a christian living in Iraq?

>>5380236

>Modern art is bad. I will only talk about artists whose works fit my argument and shit on Jackson Pollock.

>this guy
>that advertisement of his shitty book

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIorXcloIac

It's test time at Prager University, /lit/.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfN2IvnIA4M

>>5386855
I was gonna post answers to every unanswered questions he has, but then I realized that he was trying to understand scientific theories by reading catholic philosophers from the middle ages at best.

>>5381943
>that glorious feel when my country is going to have it's first Rothko exposition this month

>>5384418
>Cost to produce "art"= 200$
>Price art is sold for= 50mil
I want to believe you're not really implying.

>>5380236

>>5385533
>and satisfying all these requirements while also fulfilling my own desires will make it known as art
Art used to mean whatever craft. If you were good at making chairs, that was your art.
These discussion make zero sense because you guys don't acknowledge that the definition of art has changed pretty radically and not just because "muh rocks and farts", it's literally, completely a different thing.

>>5387484
Context and connotation may have changed but one thing is still the same, that art is that which is good

>>5387484
Well, if you go all the way back to ancient Greece it was the same word for everything you did with your hands, the idea as art and creative works comes from the middle ages and even then it was directly tied to the idea that only god could create true beauty. San Agustin presented the idea that art was improtant because it showed that we were the chosen people of god, since we can replicate his creation in a smaller scale.
The idea of what's art and why is pretty old and full of things that sound stupid.

>>5387522
Where was that from? I'm having trouble getting it into context but it sounds like something I read just like that. Its a problematic idea since some people feel good from things you would reject, and it includes nature, non material things and specialized practices like medicine that don't even want to be art.

>>5387440

>>5387572
>304k for that
hheh

>>5380502
>history
>marxist

unless you are talking materialist history then no

>>5381664
So you're arguing that capitalism is good, but that economic value has always driven culture
So you're basically advocating the materialistic view of history that Marx himself put forward.

So you're secretly a communist?

>>5387572
>painting of some street by some britbong
i see no problem with that being sold for less than a mil. been done before, i want a one of a kind.

>>5387572
I one auction people were willing to put more money than in the other. I don't see how it related to what they were buying at all.

>>5381734
The idea of a relative reality is a pretty dangerous concept. Let me propose an alternative: The reason why we can not be sure about the world is not that everything is equally true or untrue, but our own limited means of perceiving it. Everything we can observe is always going to be distorted by our senses, but that does not mean that all the ways in which we can interpret reality are equally true, because reality isn't something that is limited to our perception of it. Things happen regardless of whether we are aware of them, and there is a truth to some statements that simply does not exist for others.

>>5387687
you're just stealing the rumsfeld line;
>There are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

>>5387717
Am I?

The point is that a reality that exists independent of our perception does not change based on our beliefs. We have to be aware of our inability to be certain of anything, and respect other peoples perspectives on things, even if we do not agree with them, but this 'everyone is equally right'-bullshit is just a form of defeatism. 'I dunno who's right, let's just stop arguing and let everyone live in their own subjective reality that is totally as true as any other.'? No. Stop. We can not be sure where to draw the line between 'art' and 'not art', but that does not mean that anything can be art, it just means that there are idiots out there who are willing to call anything art.

>>5387886
so you're a constructivist, great.

300!

>>5380236
>Do You Pass the Israel Test?
>by PragerUniversity

>How the Liberal University Hurts the Liberal Student
>by PragerUniversity

>What Creates Wealth?
>by PragerUniversity

>The Truth about the Vietnam War
>by PragerUniversity

K

>>5387892
How did you come to that conclusion? I just think that there is such a thing as truth. We can only guess what it might be, but that's better than pretending that it doesn't exist.

>>5387945
Is that the bump limit?

>>5388074
yep