/lit/ - Literature

It is AN objective...

>>5617459
I hope so.

>>5617459
its both.

>>5617472
what's the other thing that it is?

>>5617473
subjective

>>5617476
That doesn't make sense, either it's objective or subjective. It can't be both

>>5617464
If I drop my STEM major for English, can I get as witty as this?

>>5617484
>It can't be both

beauty is fractional

>>5617459
how did he make that thigh so soft and succulent

>>5617491
>Beauty is fractional

Can you expand on this?

>>5617489

no

>>5617459
According to the philpapers.org survey, most philosophers think so.

Accept or lean toward: objective 382 / 931 (41.0%)
Accept or lean toward: subjective 321 / 931 (34.5%)
Other 228 / 931 (24.5%)

>>5617516

>other

yup

>>5617464
Nice...

>>5617516
Philosophers don't know shit about aesthetics.

>>5617513
the constituent parts that create the impression of beauty. the physical form and the context.

>>5617530
not in practice, but they sure know how to talk about the value of the beauty that they can't create themselves

Is something beautiful also aesthetic?

Aesthetics are defined by a set of proportional measurements forming an ideal(facial features and body parts in relation to eachother) and is objective. Creating a work of art that is aesthetic can be boiled down to a scientific formula.

Aesthetics = Objective

But beauty on the other hand is completely subjective and whether or not something is beautiful is determined by multiple factors. One of them being if what's observed follows the rules of aesthetics.

And what if the observer is a contrarian who sees beauty in what that does not follow the rules?

Beauty is subjective.

>>5617511
He made the fingers sharp and angular so the negative space seems softer. How the shadows undulate out across her thigh slowly fading compared to the sharp precipice of his hand dragging her stomach and clawing her leg gives that clean line of motion to his arm while keeping her subdued also- look at how his shoulder nearly touches his hip on the otherside to keep that sweeping momentum of sharp line.

I'll attempt to explain the view I've gathered from my experience and readings but English is not my first language and I lack eloquence in my own language as it is. I hope that doesn't dissuade you:

First, there doesn't seem to be any sense in talking about beauty without an appreciator which means beauty is a form of judgement. Thus, beauty exists either only on the appreciator ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder") or on both the appreciator and the object. It can't lie solely on the object since, as said before, it's a judgement and judgements come from beings with some degree of consciousness. However, there are several patterns in objects that the majority of people find beautiful (certain facial proportions, a variety of landscapes) but that's not to say all people. If I had to choose between subjective and objective I would choose subjective but the closest I've found to a good term for it is Universally Subjective, because it relates to the immediacy of beauty (things can appear beautiful to us without the need of arguments), the certainty of the judgement (we take said beauty as self-evident) and our supposition of generality (we often presuppose that it will appear beautiful to all others as well).

Either way, if beauty relates to qualities of objects (which I think it does, in opposition to being merely an arbitrary judgement of the appreciator), things that appear beautiful to us seem to relate more an more to desirable qualities in the sense of utility (clues of genetic fitness, for example) and to the basic structures of our mind (recognizable geometric shapes, a sense of weight and other aspects

>>5617459

Yes it is. pic related.

>>5617619

lel

I would like to say no, but they you get fat chicks calling themselves beautiful and Jews painting canvases white. So, yes.

>>5617619
you didnt upload a picture of t-swizzle though?

>>5617619
What if I think she's ugly

There are things that are objectively beautiful to humans, assuming a rational healthy human not insane or blind or too primitive, etc...

>>5617563
>Aesthetics are defined by a set of proportional measurements forming an ideal
>an ideal
>and is objective.

>>5617631
>Pushes aside
>>5617619
>Takes

Values cannot exist without something they are relative to.

>>5617640

Such as...?

>>5617459
No. If you were to go to Pakistan and America and ask for their versions of a beautiful women you would come up with two different answers.

>>5617767

see >>5617619

>>5617775
Maybe one place is wrong?

>>5617786

pakis and americans will choose correctly when exposed to both populations of women.

>>5617928
>pakis and americans will choose correctly

>>5617936

that's what he said

>>5617459
Beauty can be universal but not objective

>>5617626
unrated, beautiful post

What is beauty? What makes things beautiful? What is good? What is justice?

Ask anyone these questions and you will get a different answer from each person. It is subjective.

>>5617985

Those questions have nothing to do with whether beauty is objective or not.

>>5617985

>Punch every man in the dick and balls

>Ask: What is pain? What makes something painful? How do you know?

Ask any man these questions and they will give you different answers.

And yet pain is objective even if it's hard to explain or define.

>>5617985
Is the earth flat? Does the sun revolve around the earth? Is OP a faggot?

Ask anyone these questions and you will get a different answer from each person. It is subjective.

>>5617994

what is it like to be a shitposter on 4chan?

>>5618013

you tell me.

>>5618066

I can't, it's a quale

The concept of Beauty arises when eyes see an object. It is an offspring of the eyes and the object therefore it is both subjective and objective. Subjective because it can only arises when there is a perception. Objective because the idea of Beauty lies outside of the perception or the one who perceives.

>>5618070

we're talking about beauty, not the concept of beauty.

The aesthetic of the ass is objective

>>5618072
There is a difference? Tell me more.

>>5618092

you can eat food, you can't eat the concept of food.

you can see beauty, you can't see a concept.

>>5618090

you like mules?

Yes. There are standards of beauty that are rooted in human nature. Everything that is beautiful stems from these metaphysical roots.

The artist who creates art with the intent to shock you does not create beauty in the same way that a child who screams for our attention is not endearing. By the same reasoning, an artist who creates art to affirm an idea (antiquity sculptures, medieval frescos) certainly possess beauty, as do the impressionist works of the modern era, in the same way that a child who attempts to utter a word and affirm the world around them is endearing to us.

>>5617530
Aesthetic theory almost always fall's in the faculty of philosophy.

>>5618103
You can't see beauty. You can see beautiful objects. Beauty is conceptual as much as the word 'food' is.

>>5618108

>Scruton

Nice to see someone against degenerate art.

>>5618113
SCRUTON
C
R
U
T
O
N

>>5618111
>You can't see beauty.

>>5617459
Is you retarded?

>>5618108
lol Roger Scruton. I just listened to his lecture and I think it's shit. He talked how modern architecture is shitty but did not justify his claims.

>>5618120
Finish listening to the lecture, idiot.

>>5617640
>implying objective rationality, objective health, objective sanity, and objective assimilation

most infants are naturally intrigued by symmetry and the proportions of the golden ratio. in other words, that is the taste of an undeveloped mind, kind of like being impressed by shiny objects. most people do not develop their aesthetic taste beyond this infantile fascination.

>>5618108
>>5618113
>>5618116
Did somebody mention based Scruton?

http://documentaryaddict.com/why+beauty+matters-542-doc.html

>>5618128

sure, why not

>>5618119
Fuck off Hank Hill you smug faggot I was just asking a question

>>5618135

awesome art
>google search artist
>that name

nice

>>5618108
>human nature
>metaphysical

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gIpuIVE3k

My taste is objective, so yes. And by "is", I mean *is* objectivity.

If I find something beautiful, it is objectively beautiful. If you disagree, you are wrong, and it is self-evident to me that you are wrong, because I personally see it's beauty, whereas you only see the object in the third person, you don't see it through my eyes.

>>5617459
How do you sculpt something like that?

>>5617459
yes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxmhpaq6I4E
some of the most beautiful sounds ever put to paper

>>5618223
A lot of practice, dedication and passion. Art is what blurs the line between humans and gods.

>>5618228
>>5618135
>>5618108
>>5617619
>>5617459

>>5617625


> all this eurocentrism

>>5618231
>art today
What happened? It's like it got its' head so far stuck up its' ass the shit started to smell good.

>>5617563
>literally copy-pasting Kant

>>5618235
Beethoven is universal. Everyone, from every background and country, can experience him fully.

So apparently the artist who sculpted OPs pic was 23 when he finished it.

That's amazing!

>>5618199
Great argument you got there

>>5618241
Well, he was a Black man living in Germany so that makes sense.

>>5618236
Artists got lazy, at least that's what I think. The movement toward objective beauty was caused by the ressentiment of artists who put in a modest degree of effort not being recognized as 'great' by the bourgeoisie. Duchamp paid to have the fountain displayed, that's how it got recognition. The fountain itself was a protest over elitists tastes. Now art that doesn't take immense effort, precision and dedication is recognized as much as art that does, discouraging people from working really fucking hard at art, since they don't need to, or if they do then it's not proper to recognize them as superior to those who do not.

>>5617459
The guy who sculpted this was 22 at the time.

What did you accomplish by the time you were 22, /lit/?

>>5618235

that word triggered me.

>>5618268
>he was a Black man

>>5618268
hi /pol/

>>5618235
>Using tumblr terms
>Ever

>>5618268

beauty is just pleasant patterns because evolution
when you see greek statue depicting the ideal man you think "man I would like to fuck this guy"
when you see an ugly person you think "man i wouldnt like to fuck them"
basically pleasant things are fuckable so we like them

>>5618279

>not realizing "tumblr terms" is more of a tumblr term than eurocentrism.

>not taking serious scholarship seriously

>>5618268

>>5618270
I'm twenty-two and I'm a NEET.

>>5617640
>>>/pol/

>>5618270
drank beer legally

>>5618268
hellz yeah muhfugga, beethoven was 100% nigga

>>5618267
I'm not going to argue it, metaphysics are ontological, not nomenological . To say the metaphysical is inherent to the physical is the philosophical equivalent of creationism, it's just good for laugh material.

>>5617459
Yes, it is unknowable to us in its whole form.

>>5618108
Even if that bullshit was true, it would still not make it objective.

>>5618270

Jesus /lit/, why is everything a fucking competition?

Can't you just enjoy other people's genius without necessarily feeling a looming sensation of incompleteness and inferiority?

Is life just a big game to get your name in the history books or something?

Sometimes I think you guys would rather recall all the brilliance in the world that surpasses your own just so you might be the better for it.

>>5617640
>>5618285
see the grills depicted in that pic are fuckable so im right

>>5618302
>Can't you just enjoy other people's genius without necessarily feeling a looming sensation of incompleteness and inferiority?
No.

>>5618270
I wasn't born into a family which encouraged me to do such things or had the wealth to own a vast array of books, art and instructors.

It's pretty obvious there are objectively beautiful things and ugly things.

You don't need to have Heimdall's all-seeing eyes to know this.

>>5618317

If it's obvious, demonstrate it.

>>5618304
Nope, that's a more recent painting which doesn't split the body to ideal forms like Greek sculpture after Polykleitos. You can even see their tan lines are wrong for their diaphanous gowns, or most of history pre1920. The statue in OP is intentionally anatomically incorrect because it is a mathematically altered form to preserve symmetry across four quadrants (does any hip look like that?), and, aesthetically altered to flex all muscles to their fullest in one pose by making an amalgam of the poses which do equally strain every muscle in your body for definition. That is what makes it aesthetic: it is better than real.

>>5618317
I know, who could deny how unappealing the boy in your picture is.

>>5618317
You have to love the /pol/fags who think that their heterosexuality is something to be proud of.

>>5618317

I don't think so, but I do think the subjective experience of beauty is universal.

To demonstrate the existence of universally beautiful objects, one has to at least put forward an example.

>>5618108
>standards of beauty that are rooted in human nature
>Everything that is beautiful stems from these metaphysical roots

"There are universal values, and they happen to be mine."

>>5618336
Me too, we should do lunch.

>>5618235
Man, I hate you faggots. Every time I try to discuss history or culture of the west, without fail one of you cunts will pop out and scream ">E-EUROCENTRISM!!!" like fuck man I just want to talk about European culture I'll fucking discuss African/Asian/Middle Eastern culture some other time when I feel like it goddamn. You fucking dickbags just need to fuck off, like I really just have no time for your shit

>>5618345

Dude, this is a thread about aesthetics. Universality is kind of crucial here.

>>5618360

am i the only one who read this post in mr van diessen's voice

>>5618345

The ironic thing is that this whole discussion is predicated on Eurocentric philosophies and aesthetic theories.

>>5618108
It's truly amazing how well European artists managed to achieve the standards of objective beauty.

>Scruton

I want /ic/ faggots to leave

>>5618387
Yeah, maybe that's because Europe was largely focused on art throughout it's entire history, which allowed it to form the most impressive artistic works and theory mankind has ever seen. Why shouldn't we base this discussion on the ideal?

>>5618236
Capitalism and liberal individualism happened. Artists are no longer rewarded for being master craftsmen, they are rewarded with attention for displaying their 'unique subjectivity.'

>>5618401
>hurr my shit in a jar is art too because i say it is!!

You leave, faggot

>>5618409
whats with this /b/ social commentary crap

>>5618414
>hurr muh dichotomy

you realize you have to be over 18 to be on this board

>>5617459
I'm not even into sculpture but God damn this is some impressive shit.

>>5618402

What I'm saying is that the very philosophy of aesthetic "objectivity" is a European construct.

To even ask his question OP has to use European tools.

>Bernini was only 23 years old at its completion.

Well fuck me in the ass then.

>>5618336
Yes, this is what the artists of the Western tradition are saying.

You think you know better faggot?

>>5618401
suck my cock you dog

>>5618336

>>5618427
What's the problem with that? Just because other cultures never addressed it doesn't mean it isn't a real thing.

>>5617459
It all depends on whether you like the artist or not.
The art itself doesn't matter.

>>5618437
Hitler's work with colours is bland as fuck.
>muh ebin draughtsmanship xDXDXD

>>5618442
I see you are a slave to novelty
are you a postmodernist by chance?

>>5618437
Wasn't he denied due to a mixture of racism and the fact that, while technically competent, he wasn't seen as having the passion, vision, or drive necessary to succeed as an artist?

Like with would-be concert musicians.

>>5618427

Of course it's European construct, majority of concepts in philosophy are constructed by Europeans. What are you even implying? It takes absolutely no validity from it. You can make an aesthetic judgement on African/Indian/whatever piece of art. However aesthetic judgement does not always qualifies it as beautiful. You need to have knowledge of various factors (perception, local cultural conceptualism) to do so.

>>5618444
>those assumptions
try harder /pol/lack

>>5618447

I think he was denied because he was a shit-tier artist.

>>5618437
lol all that art is better than hitler's? is this meant as a joke? Hitler's art is trash, and is also trash compared to the standards of the style that was in at the Academy or whatever
>feels bad for the fool who would rather have a bland castle landscape in their house than a Schiele

>>5618437
See, if people stopped pretending that modern art was actually good, Hitler would have gotten into art school and World War 2 would never have happened.

Modern art is responsible for the deaths of 60 million people.

>>5618449

Impressive, but seriously what is the point of painting hyperrealism in the age of photography, especially when you're copying a photograph?

>>5618437
kek
Imagine if Hitler would have been accepted. There would be no "hitler did nothing wrong" epic memes.

>>5618437
>look mom I painted the state opera it looks just like in real life, much better than these degenerates who actually express themselves

>>5618442

Germany would've been dead and in ruins if he became an artist.

>>5618454
not really care for that aspect, it's the POV that appeals to me

>>5618437
lel
>muh entartete kunst is horrible

>>5618452
lol 'Modern Art' was barely accepted in the 1900s-1920s or whenever hitler applied, the standard that would get him into the Academy was the same shit style he failed at, learn your history if you weren't joking

>>5618457
>express themselves by creating shock value shlock

>>5618437
someone pls pst that pic of the norman soldier hitler drew.

>>5618470
>is literally a century behind in his art taste and understanding of art

>>5618470
don't you have Bougereau's cherub dicks to appreciate?

Ancient Greek sculpture had a different kind of approach than most of other sculpture art in history. They believed in a objective world (well, sometimes they degeraneted in subjectivity, but not during most of its history), with universal laws. Most of scupture untuil that time focused in lazy imitation.

"You see, you break a rock trying to do that."

Greeks did differently. Their scupture reflect their intuitive knowledge of the humam anatomy: proportions between parts of humam body, balance, the tensions who govern the form of a piece of cloth when is suspended. What is incredible is that sculptors knew these things intuitively. There are no math formulae. And I would say math in Greece appeared later than sculpture. It's the faith in universal law applied to art.

It's beautiful.

>>5618235
Europa Universalis motherfucker

>>5618476
Shouldn't you be licking Duchamp's urinal clean?

>>5618484
>Bougereau
if you don't get why duchamp is infinitely more important/modern art isn't more beautiful than bougereau then maybe find some pins of your mother to stick in your eyes

>>5618470
>libido is literally the one of the most basic human instincts
>somehow it's shock value to express it through painting

>>5618490
>modern art isn't more beautiful
I don't believe that in your heart you actually feel this

>>5618490
>modern art is more beautiful than bougereau
ayy lmao

>>5618470

>>5618492
not every single Modern Artist, but Bougereau literally makes me sick

>>5618491
Libido is an idea invented by Freud
erotic art has existed since antiquity otherwise. And there are tasteful ways to express it.

>>5618494
i'm proud i put this in /lit/ rotation, modern fashion has nothing on this

>>5618490
>conceptualism
>Duchamp better than anyone

>>5618498
was that the "le wrong generation"-thread?

>>5618501
>thinks he knows anything about art

>>5618501
>this is literally superior to all neoclassicism

(i'm serious, suck a dick all yous)

>>5618457
>actually express themselves

Look I created a masterpiece because I expressed myself!

>>5618497
Huh yeah, I just used it in a casual way for sexual instinct because I can't think of a nice English word for Sexualtrieb.

>>5618437
Not avantgarde enough

>>5618503
lol yeah, dude didn't even address how dumb he was to be mad at the unique 21st century evil of leggings or whatever in light of my compelling evidence

>>5617516
no, most philosophers don't. ~40% of philosophers do.

>>5618512
If this represents how you feel about Jews I respect it as an authentic piece of art.

>>5618507
>If you're not with the avant-garde, you don't understand art!

kek

>>5618521
>if you're not with the last 150 years of art

>>5618521
lol no it's just that by thinking duchamp is lower than literally every other artist you just don't know many artists

that and you said he is 'conceptualist' like lmao posture some more

>>5618518

it's a walrus...wtf

>>5618511
the fuck you mean. I hate Duchamp guts and I expressed it clearly with the animu faec

>>5618521
>if you don't automatically dismiss the avant-garde then you are for the avant-garde

Daily reminder that the discipline of art history and the idea that Greek sculpture is the peak of artistic achievement was begun by a homosexual degenerate.

>>5618516
you just didn't understand. kids these days are truly the worst evah!

What gets me is that the people outspoken against "modern art" seem to ignore the contrasts of art before the 19th century and it's all some homogeneous mass of "good art" that took talent, genius, etc.

>>5618529
further reminder: compare all art in Western Europe between the Greeks and the 15th century to all the art in every other place in the world. I'd be clinging to the Greeks too, lol sorry Europe.

>>5618524
>Duchamp
>not associated with conceptual art at all

what am i reading

>>5618541
that's different to saying he practices conceptualism

anyway stop demonstrating your lack of insight into art history

>>5618541
Conceptualism, though highly influenced by Duchamp, didn't exist as a school/'thing' until the 60s, when Duchamp was busy with chess, so to call Duchamp's art conceptual isn;t incorrect, but he wasn't a Conceptualist
like you don't call Monet an Abstract Experssionist

>>5618539
Like where, Africa or Americas? You don't mean to be taken seriously? Only Islamic civillization and China compares to late medieval Western Europe marvels in art and basically whole Byzantine art.

>>5618547

>Islam in charge of art

>>5618543
>>5618545
what is the urinal considered then, is that found art? (not that anon)

>>5618547
"Primitive" African sculpture is light years ahead of what was going on in Europe at that time, its 'discovery' by Europeans was what helped spur the leaps in Modern art, Picasso, etc, read your history all u dimwits

>>5618552
hi /pol/

>>5618554
>the leaps in Modern art, Picasso, et
if by leaps you mean absolute degeneracy

>>5618554
> leaps in Modern art, Picasso

yep, leaps right into shit toilets.

>>5618557
>>5618558
hi /pol/

>>5618553
it's a readymade iirc
It's conceptual, but not part if the school known as Conceptualism/ Duchamp wasn't a Conceptualist
like Monet's water lilies are almost non-objective/abstract expressionism, but he's still an Impressionist

>>5618554
>African sculpture is light years ahead of what was going on in Europe at that time
i am loling

>>5618554

Someone been fed Nation of Islam literature. If you claim that anything other than Umayyad art from Africa was at least equal with medieval European then you're an absolute dupe

>>5618554

>Picasso
>close friends with Stalin's minister of propaganda Ilya Ehrenburg
>a racist bigot who incited the killings of millions


>Picasso
>turned art into an gross freak show

>>5618552
>europe in charge of not letting islamic influence into its art

>>5618557
i can't even laugh if you're not serious (if you are serious, see the pin in eye suggest someone said above) bc being labeled degenerates/ hitlers regime made so many of my babies kill themselves/ ruin their lives before the war even started/ oh yeah, the holocaust and millions other killed (inb4 whatever terrible /pol/ holocaust jokes)

>>5618547
Buddhist and Hindu art can be good too, same with Aztec and Maya carving.

>>5618573
>islamic art in charge of not wholesale adopting western european art and forgetting its own roots
whenever I get to the 18th-19th century in an islamic museum i have myself a kek

>>5618569
this is literally from white men written at the time in the first half of the 20th century (racist white men, a lot of them!)

>>5618574

can you try saying this in coherent english? thanks

>>5618578
>somehow this denies islamic influence in western art

ah ok

>>5618534
this

>>5618570
>>5618558
>>5618557
>>5618437

/lit/'s taste in art-almost as bad as it's taste in books

>>5617985
If you go to africa and ask people what is gravity you will get different answers, therefor gravity is subjective.

>>5618574
Their art is degenerate as fuck. The forms literally degenerate, the composition and harmony of color and line literally degenerate, the entire thing just gets uglier and uglier

>>5618583

tell me about Islams influence on our art prior to the 8th century

>>5618582
Being labeled degenerates put a lot of German artists out of work, ruined their lives, and drove some to suicide.
Hitler was a loser. The Holocaust was bad.

>>5618586
of course - these people just want to associate with literature and art so make these bold calls about the 'correct' style that appeals to their unread dilettante tastes

it's obvious because they always use the same examples as each other that they heard from some other dude making brash remarks

>>5618586
>blaming the entirety of /lit/eral faggots for a few /pol/acks shitting up the board

>>5618586

Modern art sucks and everyone knows it. Sorry to burst your bubble.

http://insomnia.ac/essays/the_conspiracy_of_art/

>>5618595
>people who dislike modern art are all ignorant dilettantes
Yeah that's a perfectly reasonable outlook

>>5618595
all these dudes are embarrassing themselves with their ignorance of art history/ any history.

>>5618596
I'm also blaming the neoclassicism fanz.

>>5618593

I wish our pseudo-modern artists were also put out of work.

>German artists out of work

no they were predominately not german.

>>5618598
>implyong bodrilau isnt a hack

>>5618590
why are you limiting it to the 8th century? you're giving me a single century since the advent of islam to work with? like you're purposely avoiding the biggest cultural exchange between islam and the west in the crusades?

sure i can do that

>>5618604

2nd best philosopher of all time m8

>tfw everyone overlooks late Medieval Italian art because of the Renaissance

Northern Renaissance is the best Renaissance anyway

>>5618602
artists who were working in Germany/part of German Expressionism, Bauhaus, etc., I'm not looking at everybody's birth certificates.

>>5618602
oh I get it, German citiziens with Jewish ancestry aren't German so it's ok to fuck them up :^=)
epic, brother
arbeit macht frei

>>5618600
those people dislike what they think is modern art, which is shitty examples like "piss christ" and "the fountain" that they think sums up the essence of modern art

>>5618579

I know what you mean. Their identitarian reasoning is as flawed as their literature. I smelled a NoL nigger in this thread and I know he's lurking.

>>5618608
>tfw everyone overlooks carolingian, ottonian, romanesque, gothic, and byzantine art because of italian art

>>5618614

Yeah, weird ready-made stuff doesn't sum it up. We left out the pain splotches and sketches.

>>5618614
Again I'm asking you a clear question, you think it is impossible to be highly knowledgeable about art history and think Modern art represented a decline?

>>5618607
who's the best one in ur opinion?

>>5618620
you can ask that question but you'd be missing the point of my post

>>5618615
ummm I meant the praise of African art was from white men who were themselves usually racist, the history of modern art is not a black conspiracy or whatever dumbfucks think

>>5618622
I'd like you to answer the question

>>5618624
good for you

>>5618621

Friedrich Nietzsche bro

>>5618611

Germans rejected degenerate art. Which happened to be primarily made by jewish artists at the time.

>>5618625
What a great conversationalist! Can't actually discuss anything, no it's so much easier to just call people ignorant and not engage with them

>>5618628
And then they lost the war.

>>5618620

Modern art is obviously a decline, but who really cares? The only noteworthy thing is the hilarious critical response to these pieces of junk. Standards in the visual arts vanished because we had moved onto far more interesting artforms like photography, movies, and videogames.

>>5618620
dif anon, but if you know art history/ appreciate art and think that then you have bad taste/ a bad eye (comparing 20th century and 16-mid19th is no contest)
if you can look at neoclassicism and not want to throw up then yikes

>>5618630
again, you can ask that question but you'd be missing the point of my post. 'discussing something' doesn't mean answering irrelevant questions

>>5618628
>tfw no decent non-slutty gf because the Jew brainwashes girls

>>5618480
It's like anti history.

The Greeks had to import sculpture, and up until they had the good grace to be invaded they made only tiny figurines because they hadn't worked out what materials you need to make a lifesized statue which doesn't fall apart or topple on some one. After they learnt how the earliest surviving statue of a life size figure by Greeks is realistic. Looking too much like a human was obviously a problem for them because ideals ought not look human. The math of the form is pretty simple- humans are divided at the waist into equal parts, though this is not proportionate to human anatomy; this is further divided into four quadrants and the limbs each occupy one,with one foot behind, one arm stretched forward, one back, etc. The geometry of the form and axes set by Polykleitos for these statues creates the range of poses you see in classical sculpture, and the aesthetic of the poses and tensing antagonistic muscles at the same time lasts well in most sculpture after. They had very strict formulae and moved from representational with engineering problems to representational and then quickly to mathematically formulaic enough to be instantly recognised as high canon for the next coule thousand years. David not standing in an action pose was mind blowing mid renaissance because of its straying from that form.

Further, gravestone ornamentation for Athenians only cut down when uniform markers for graves were made mandatory to stop the living tableaux people were coming up with. The ever increasing degeneration to subjectvity was a major concern of their laws in general.

The other civilisations both in Greece and in contemporary cultures felt they were being objective in their nonrepresentative formulae too (such as Egyptians dividing the body into a grid based on threes rather than bisecting, and their tendency to obelisks and hieroglyphs).

>>5618628
lol the German people loved degenerate art, when they put it on display to mock it there were crowds and praise and then the Nazis were embarrassed when no one cared about their art shows of 'good art'
which is part of why they were so obsessed with stealing art from the rest of Europe

>>5618618
That's true, I wonder if an overdose of Renaissance and post-Renaissance painting has made it harder for us to appreciate medieval art.

>>5618645
word, I love medieval art, anatomy and shadows are 4 suckers (4 real, I'm way more interested in looking at Pre-Renaissance art even if it's not as 'good')

modern art rules, reactionaries of /lit/ drool, l8r

>>5618480
Their art reflected an ideal, not the objective world.

lol it's so obvious ITT who actually cares about art and who parasitically uses art as another political avenue for their undeveloped conspiracy theories regarding modernity, cultural marxism, insert bogeyman here, etc.

>>5618657

as long as it's not degenerate it's fine.
pic related

If you don't think this is beautiful art then you're a reactionary shitlord and should fuck off back to >>>/pol/

>>5618674
>>5618666
i literally do prefer the shit in a can to ferri's throwback

>>5618674
ebin satire ;^)

>>5618664

if you like modern art you don't care about art.

>>5618677

>I prefer shit can

Well you have shitty taste. Not everyone likes good art.

>>5618684
my imaginary home would be more beautiful if i dumped a pile of shit in the living room than if i put the art you're posting on the walls

>>5617459
is beauty objective? yes
is taste in beauty objective? no
taste in beauty is subjective

>>5618687
>home
What are you, some kind of grandpa?

Cool kids live on the street.

>>5618687

I'd like this one on a wall

>>5618692

and this

>>5618692
>>5618696
I'd like this in my living room

>>5618700
I think you'd perfer a regular qt.

>>5618270
He was 23, TWENTY THREE when he completed this - holy fuck impressive is not the word

>>5618639
I admit I lack historical knowledge to proper give you an answer, but some parts of your answer pulled my attention. So I'll focus on them.

>The Greeks had to import sculpture, and up until they had the good grace to be invaded.

By who? When? To be honest, when I praise greek culture, I refer to a somewhat specific time in their history. Homeric age (800bc) to Alexander, the Great (300ac). In this time, they had cultural unity, layed down by homeric epic, further developed by poets and tragedians and summed up by historians and philosophers. In this time, they weren't conquered (at least, attic/peloponese wasn't).

> Looking too much like a human was obviously a problem for them because ideals ought not look human.

Greek gods looked like humans and they were their ideals for a good chunk of time. You could even say greek gods were the aristocratic ideal of human excellence realized.

>>5618270
I still got a year left...

>>5618717

>23 a full adult male

Why is that impressive? That's a pretty normal age to be very skilled at a craft

specially if he started at a young age...

>>5618547

>>5618723

But he could dedicate his time to his craft. Now he would have had his time wasted by schooling and work.

>>5618737

who is the artist btw?

>>5618738
>rape of proserpina

nevermind i found it, ya he's good

>>5618719
>By who? When? To be honest, when I praise greek culture, I refer to a somewhat specific time in their history. Homeric age (800bc) to Alexander, the Great (300ac). In this time, they had cultural unity, layed down by homeric epic, further developed by poets and tragedians and summed up by historians and philosophers. In this time, they weren't conquered (at least, attic/peloponese wasn't).
Ionian (amongst others) mercenaries back Simeticus' invasion of Egypt who had life size statues, while the Greeks (including here mercenaries) had tiny figurines. That's about 660BC, and mentioned in Herodotus. This is when the cultural invasion begins and you see Egyptesque statues begin to appear in Greece at human size. These early statues show signs of the Greeks attempting to make the Egyptian style more representational, adding human ears and closing the rigid style into a more curved one, especially in the waist and ass. Eventually this leads to Kritios Boy, the first recognisably Greek human form statue of life size in that it forms a realistic representation of the naked human form, unstylised. Then, within fifty years of that statue, it is impossible to get something strictly representational because Greeks have developed their mathematical styling (cf Polykleitos' measurements). Without the returning trade from the Ionians, and the invasion of Egyptian culture the alliance formed, Greece would still be making dinky humans as close to representational as possible in miniature.

>Greek gods looked like humans and they were their ideals for a good chunk of time. You could even say greek gods were the aristocratic ideal of human excellence realized.
Other way around: they attempted to look like an ideal. The ideal being representational of human form died within a lifetime of its achievement, and was more of a fad in terms of Greek culture than miniature representational sculpture which had at least spanned some generations, not less than one.

>>5618786
Could you mention books/articles where I could get more informed about this? A lot of you say is plainly contradictiory to what I know. Better get more info on this subject.

>>5618723

lol look at this douchebag

>>5618786
>>5618793
I left out those Eygptian influenced statues are called kouroi (the word for youth, the ideal they represented) and their development is interesting enough that the wikipedia page is a solid resource for better histories than I can give. (Kouros is the singular and title of the page, though someone with a Greek keyboard is going to tell me to stop writing in Roman soon).
Which parts do you find contradictory?

>>5618723

Completed by Bernini at age 15.

>>5618799
And another thing: there's a BBC series which traces the representation of human form and makes many of these arguments and gives greater context to other early representations. If I've got a quick google right it's this one, but I constantly confuse the title whenever I recommend it, so apologies if you learn something else
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eGRoSjp3Ik
(if it is the right one, there's a bit with seagulls which is contestable science, but it sounds nice)

>>5618457
Obviously painting was hindering Hitler's expression of himself. He didn't quit doing art, he just quit doing paintings and changed his branch.

>>5618822
In kindergarten we made sculptures too

>>5618861

keyword bad
keyword

>bad

>bad painting

nothing about good or bad car/cat

you stupid son of bitch faggot

>>5618869
dw anon, pretty certain it be one of them 'troll' pictures

Yes of course.

Beauty is wisdom and derives form divine truths.

Nearly everything posted in this thread isn't beautiful. it might be aesthetically pleasing and appeal to a sentimental nature but at best it's merely prettiness devoid of any spirit.

Dunno m8

>>5618899

epic

>>5618666
>pic related
>The king of the degenerates

>>5618231
fuck off cunt

>>5618270
Solved the structure of a protein, pretty happy with that.

>>5618910
I enjoy the meta-irony of this post

>>5618333
A human baby

>>5618103
If you can eat your words and you can say "the concept of food" then you can eat the concept of food.

Isn't my girlfriend beautiful?

>>5619022
But that is not your gf bro

>>5618474
fuck you and your "understanding of art"

"Shock value" is the transition of art from beauty to marketing

>>5619025
>

Say that to my face, faggot

>>5618437
>still thinking hitler was a good artist

>>5619030

>art = beauty

yikes.

>>5619039
If not to capture beauty, what function do you assign art?

>>5619086

Art isn't functional, cowboy.

>>5619097
That's not true

Modern art is heavily subjected on aesthatic amd philosophical theories because it became part of the institutional manifestations of social life.

The greatest example that one can apraciate is really non other than Picasso.

Picasso is philosophical, primitivist, cubist, hyperealist and whatever else he choses to be be, depending on the idea he is trying to convey. Picasso plays with space and time as well with perception and ideas, in a way no one ever did before him.

To me this is the closest one can get to an objective feeling aesthetic satisfaction, in that I enter not only the realm of formal of aesthetics in an art work, but also a "world" in the philosophical sense. Only an artists that has the power to shape reality itself (the way we think) can do this.

Undoubtedly the implications of this, is that all art is essentialy elitist. Someone that doesn't understand the "rules of the game" of the artwork is going to inevitably dismiss it as "incomprehensible" or "pretentious".

>>5619033
I have no friends. I would love to. I am ronery.

>>5619104

An act of social or political communication is not a function. It's an operation of discourse, outside of structure.

>>5618527
r u wizard?

>>5618822


Realist sculpture no matter how good it is, stops being novel when you realise that the Greeks perfected it by 400bc.

>>5618527
what is this sorcery???

>>5618575
symmetric =/= good

>>5618527
not cool man, give me back my anime babe

>>5619115
An act of social or political communication... that depicts beauty

Widening the net so that almost any human activity could be defined as art is assinine and causes art to lose all meaning

>>5619108
>Picasso
Plus he pinched shit from the Louvre no one would miss, which is the ultimate case of it's not plagiarism if you hide your sources well enough, so it's a good case of coming full circle into the old order. Not as good as when Warhol died and everyone found out his place was filled with antiques and academic painters.

>>5619167

The act of meaning-making is an interpretive, subjective act. That you find meaning in beauty is fine, but I'd be careful with those narrow nets.

>>5618109

yeah, then go look at the way they dress and carry themselves and realize they can talk about aesthetics at length, but only in theory. Only they physics departments are worse.

>Discussing aesthetic difference and distance?

Imma distance myself from you and dat socks+Birkenstocks combo.

>>5619036

But he became a great artist in his own way.

>>5619115
>this is what cultural marxists believe

inb4 no such thing as cultural marxism

>>5619136
Why does art need to be novel?

>>5617459
no

>>5617516
jesus christ. Really?