/lit/ - Literature

>>5870162
you are trying to act edgy but can't spell pretentious

let that sink in

What's that? Aesthetes are morons? You're completely correct, OP.

>>5870177
He's right, despite being a dumbfuck.

http://youtu.be/4Y1iErgBrDQ?t=1m49s

Art is made to be enjoyed. Therefore a good, solid action movie like Die Hard is greater art than all the impressionist paintings in the world.

>>5870177
>you are trying to act edgy but can't spell pretentious

Why are these related?

>>5870183
if he really believes what he said, why hasn't he killed himself yet?

>>5870255
Why would believing that mean you would have to kill yourself?

>>5870263
With no means to express human emotion why would you want to live?

>>5870189

heh good beard you got there smug pepe

>>5870189
Die hard is boring. Try harder.

>>5870277
You're probably just as dumb as he is.

>>5870294
I bet you're telling yourself that your smarter than everyone else for being miserable, hope you have fun with that Einstein.

>>5870277
War is a better expression of emotion than art is.
So is sex.
So is friendship.
rt is an imitation and never anything more.

>>5870313
How many people on earth have the power to wage war? And sex and relationships are very nice, what about when those tragically come to an end?

>>5870284
>die hard is boring
Thinking that Die Hard is boring makes you a boring person.

>>5870313
It's not an imitation, dickshit. It's an attempt to understand and capture the essential nature of those powerful emotions.

>>5870325
That's the point of emotion, idiot. It ends.
Art is a lie in that it pretends to be eternal and pretends that the things it reflects are eternal.
The inability of most people to actually wage war gives war more weight than art can have. War destroys art, btw.
Sex and love are better than contemplating a piece of art alone in your room. Art is supposed to channel emotions and life; why not just feel and live?

>>5870162
>tfw i have no knowledge of art history but think i understand everything about it
>>/ic/

>>5870284
Die Hard is the greatest Christmas movie ever made you ignorant pleb fuck

>>5870344
By way of imitation, yes.
Art is not a feeling or an immediate experience.

>>5870354
Neither is spouting off pseudo-philosophical bullshit on the internet but you don't seem to be particularly upset about that.

>>5870162
>>5870345
making dismissive sweeping statements about "art"
>being this ignorant

Define art bruh

>>5870189
>implying i enjoy die hard more than i enjoy monet

just because you are easily entertained does not mean everyone else is

>>5870345
lol emotion doesn't end after a relationship ends, there is more than emotion than happy. Calling me an idiot lol are you 7?

>>5870359
I don't pretend to be better than artists, I just think there are more worthwhile things in life.
>>5870360
An objective work meant to channel some aspect of the human experience.

>>5870345
>Art is supposed to channel emotions and life; why not just feel and live?
I wouldn't know because I'm a boring-ass milquetoast spiritual NEET but what if art amplifies life? Like if I play videogames(which are art shut up) when I'm in a bad mood, feel bad about myself, am stressed etc I enjoy them much less than if I play them when I feel good about myself and have nothing else I should be doing.

>>5870362
When you die, you stop feeling emotions. Did you not catch that implication?

>>5870367
>Thinking things are worthwhile.
You've got a long way to go until adulthood, Jimmy.

>>5870367
>An objective work meant to channel some aspect of the human experience.
lmao what a fucking retarded definition
this is so vague you wouldnt be able to discern a monet from a book

also
>art
>objective
????

you're an idiot

>>5870369
Art does amplify life, but art without life is literally impossible. Life without art is boring but possible. Aesthetes are morons.
If I could choose between a long marriage to a woman I truly love or the ability to write the next great novel, I would choose marriage.

>>5870353
Isn't Gremlins a Christmas movie? I'm pretty sure there's snow and gremlins at some point.

>>5870367
The only worthwhile things on this planet from a biological standpoint is fucking and popping out the kiddos. Everything else is art.

>>5870381
Objective in the sense that it's an object that subjects experience, you piece of objective trash.

ARE WE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT FINE ART? (shit you'd see in an art gallery)

>>5870393
Why isn't fucking art?
Is a fish art? Is the ocean art?

Whatever stops Ixion's wheel.

>>5870361
Okay, you enjoy the paint splotches of some half-amateur more than the 2-hour 24 FPS action-fest made by dozens if not hundreds of talented people. Some people enjoy Damien Hirst, that doesn't make him anything else than a giant hack and scam artist. Bad taste.

>>5870393
> from a biological standpoint is fucking and popping out the kiddos. Everything else is art.
> popping out the kiddos.
>Everything else is art.
Gremlins is art.

>>5870393
>Everything else is art.
Art is the craft of illusion. A car is not an illusion, a party is not an illusion, a textbook is not an illusion.

>>5870388
>If I could choose between a long marriage to a woman I truly love or the ability to write the next great novel, I would choose marriage.
The experience of writing the next great novel would itself, in many respects, be like a long marriage to a women one truly loves. You have detached notion of what it means to make great art.

>>5870422
It might be like a long marriage, but it wouldn't be actual love with another human being.

>>5870407
dude youre both fucking stupid
not all art is made "to be enjoyed"
damien hirst especially

>o ya the kids will love this one :ppp

>>5870419
Says who? If art in itself is an attempt to perceive the world around us then everything is art. There's no static verifiable perception of reality, everyone's is different.

>>5870439
>If art in itself is an attempt to perceive the world around us then everything is art.
Who said art was that?
>There's no static verifiable perception of reality, everyone's is different.
So what?

>>5870402
If twenty people see a fish, there will be twenty different descriptions of that fish, even if they're basically the same, some will notice more, some will notice less, some will notice completely different things. The description of the fish gives the fish being, the ability to be recognized. The description is art.

>>5870461
>The description of the fish gives the fish being, the ability to be recognized
So the fish doesn't exist before people draw pictures of it?

>>5870450
>So what?
Man that's good, you should be a politician.

>>5870467
Answer the question. What dies that statement have to do with anything at all?

>>5870463
Not to us.

>>5870469
See
>>5870461
That sums it up.

>>5870436
>not all art is made "to be enjoyed"
Of course not, not all art is good. What's the point in art nobody likes? Nothing, if you have a message I got a new invention for you, it's called WRITING and it's a vastly more effective tool of communication than sea animals in solution or whatever ugly garbage the scam artists can shit out. You don't see the philosophers making ugly readymades to convey their ideas.
>>5870439
Art is not an attempt to perceive the world, for that we have our heads and all their wonderful sensory and cognitive faculties. Art is an attempt to create a fake world. Paintings of jesus are fake jesuses(jesii?). Transformers is a fake depiction of a world with robots in disguise. Novels are fake events and places. Videogames are fake universes. Statues are fake men. Architecture is houses. Cars are vehicles. Fashion is clothing. The constitution is a paper with legislation.

>>5870353
That makes it even more boring.

"Christmas movie" ? Please. A courtyard fight is seriously more interesting (and instructive) than Die Hard 1 to 7 and yes I'm including Die Hards that haven't been shot yet.

>>5870471
So if I see a fish before anyone else does and I don't try to 'describe' it, there isn't a fish there? Isn't the fish itself conscious to some degree? Doesn't art have to involve some kind of human input in order to be art? How can a fish, which was born out of an egg and lives in the ocean and was most certainly not created by a human being, be art?

>>5870471
Of course it does. I can see the fucking fish. Don't make this more complicated than it is.

>>5870189
>Art is made to be enjoyed.
simpleton.

art is made because it OUGHT to be - to express the human condition, and to relieve, and to entertain, and a myriad of other reasons. what makes a piece of art GOOD is whether we OUGHT, by way of ethics, to appreciate it,

the reason a monet painting is good is because it's worth admiring because it's crafted expertly and many times expresses truths about the beauty of nature. the reason die hard is /okay/ because it's well crafted and shows the power of one - a very basic theme (on a surface level). i'm no film analyzer, but any good film theory scholar could find tons of subliminal meaning in die hard, but it wouldn't be because mctierman purposely added these sentiments. it's a lot easier to do to a tarkovsky film, because his films are intrinsically didactic, so you wouldn't need to search as hard for deeper mean because it's deliberatly weaved in (making tark far superior to john mctiernan).

idk really
ideology of pic totally unrelated, just a random pic of DER BLUTHARSCH

>>5870481
All those fake things have basic underlying human ideas, don't they? So art is communicating one person's ideas, one person's world view, one persons version of reality, not creating a fake and alien world.

>>5870429
>If I could choose between a long marriage to a woman I truly love or the ability to write the next great novel, I would choose marriage.
What's the greatest love affair next to a great work of philosophy, anon? Or a great way of life? How much of the world has been changed by love affairs as opposed to philosophical doctrines and aesthetic phenomena?

There's another very important difference between the example I'd like to point out. Wishing for a long marriage with someone you truly love here is all good and well, but it's like wishing for a very good form of respite. You could say in this respect it's no different from art, because art is a respite from the hard work of life, just as marriage with someone you love is, and the hard, most fulfilling work of life includes the the creation of art. So the difference is between wishing for the best form of respite over something worth more than any respite and to which respite is only a means.

>>5870495
But without the word fish you don't even know what it is.

>>5870491
If you see the fish and no one else does? How can they be sure there was a fish there? To them it doesn't exist. Come on, this is basic philosophy.

OK GUYS read this
http://www.quia.com/files/quia/users/dring/Why_Is_That_Art_early_pages.pdf

>attempts to try and complicate and romanticize our inane and simple lives

this is not true, why the fuck would you think all artists share this goal? many artists did not even live inane and simple lives and neither did their audiences. Delacroix for example wanted to make art to help inspire the french revolution (whether this was successful or not is outside of your argument)

>it's called WRITING and it's a vastly more effective tool of communication
for some things obviously but to quote hopper "If you could say it in words there would be no reason to paint." Not everything can be said in words

you have no understanding of art history, so dont try to make edgy sweeping statements about art thinking that you've figured it all out

did this guy just link us his fucking philosophy of art 101 reader for class or something

>>5870532
its the only pdf version i could find online
who cares anyways read whats inside

>>5870515
Philosophy isn't art.
The difference between love of a person and love of a work is that in one case you're loving a human being and in the other you aren't. That's the basic difference that matters to me and that I'm trying to emphasize. Marriage isn't a respite from hardship, it's accepting hardships, both your own and another's.
Love > art.
>>5870517
The fish is still something out there. Without a word, it still is what it is.

itt uncreative anons who cant express themselves except by recycling cliche romantic sentiments

>>5870553
Your mother is a fish.

>>5870549
It exists to you, but not anyone else. Now how would you go about telling what you saw?

>>5870503
They're not alien worlds, they're very familiar(well, depends on the work), but they're not real. Ceci n'est pas une pipe and all that.
>>5870497
>art is made because it OUGHT to be - to express the human condition, and to relieve, and to entertain, and a myriad of other reasons. what makes a piece of art GOOD is whether we OUGHT, by way of ethics, to appreciate it
There's no ought. Who says you are obliged to make paintings and books and movies and music and video games? And all those reasons are made for enjoyment. On the creating side, you obviously enjoy making them, or else you wouldn't. On the receiving side, all those you mentioned are for enjoyment.
>the reason a monet painting is good is because it's worth admiring because it's crafted expertly and many times expresses truths about the beauty of nature.
They're not that good, compare them to renaissance paintings and they look quaint. Anyway, they're good because they're reasonably aesthetic and remind you of enjoyable things in life. Die hard is good because it's inherently enjoyable to watch or hear about heroes, and the movie is well put together in general, on top of being in a very advanced medium which allows it to unlock more potential. I fucking love paintings, but I still enjoy a good movie more. "Meaning" is useless. A movie and a fartwork(fartwork will from now on refer to pretentious garbage like whatever hirst does) can have the same intended message, like something about the worthlessness of modern society, but I will enjoy Brazil far more than Tracy Emins "Bed".

>>5870562
Again: the fish is conscious, to at leas a slight degree. What if things exist outside of your perception of them? You're making all kinds of metaphysical assumptions and misunderstanding the nature of language while you're at it.

>>5870162
>tfw every inconsequential bit of Philosophy 101 you come up with you immediately post on a Kwakwa̱ka̱’wakw slam poetry board

>>5870570
So your saying that you know, for certain, veritably, that there are things that exist outside your perception? Sounds like you're making assumptions.

>>5870525
>for some things obviously but to quote hopper "If you could say it in words there would be no reason to paint." Not everything can be said in words.
Everything can be said in words. Not everything can be felt by reading them. "War is hell" doesn't do much for me, although I understand the meaning. Watching horrifying war movies has a much greater effect upon me, even though it's still the same message. The message cannot redeem art, the message can just be a seed point for art to crystallize from. Truly meaningless art like, say, seinfeld is still better than contemporary fartwork.

>>5870549
>Philosophy isn't art
Oh yes it is, it's the highest art. The artist conveys a sense of the world just as the philosopher does, but the one that the philosopher conveys is vastly, vastly more powerful. The only significant difference is that where the artist has used very convincing tools to convey a very rudimentary sense of the world (contrast the extent or horizon of the typical work of art with an entire philosophy contained in one book) the philosopher has been constrained to use rather rudimentary tools, conscious written language to convey a holistic sense of the world. If a philosopher could convey a sense of the world as comprehensive and magnanimous with paint or photography or cinema as he could with the precision and depth of language then he would, and it would be vastly superior, vastly more seductive than any artistic work.

>The difference between love of a person and love of a work is that in one case you're loving a human being and in the other you aren't.
It would be more accurate to say you a loving a specific person, because the artist who produces a great work is in love with a human being, various human beings; his predecessors in the tradition and those for whom he is writing. So what is it that you are ultimately trying to emphasize? That a good relationship is worth more than the most significant achievements of human beings on the basis of, what, it being a specific kind of love with a specific person?

>Marriage isn't a respite from hardship, it's accepting hardships, both your own and another's.
Do you not understand, though, that compared to the serious work of life, any of the hardships (the real hardships, not simply trivial bickering and the stupid shit that happens normal or dysfunctional marriages) of a marriage are purely respite.

>>5870584
I believe in God, so it's easy for me to believe in an objective reality.
>>5870586
>Everything can be said in words.
Lrb2/Wittgenstein

>>5870567
why shouldn't i kill you?

>>5870602
Why should you?

>>5870591
Philosophy and the kind of art being discussed ITT are different. I acknowledge the artistic side of philosophy, but I wouldn't put it in the paradigm being discussed here.
Loving a particular person is more admirable than loving a universal humanity, and more personally fulfilling, since a universal cannot live, most certainly not unconditionally.
Art is respite, but when you and your wife are both suffering through something, you aren't taking a break from it. Marriage consists of both ups and downs. Married couples who survive concentration camps together are dealing with more than just bickering.

>>5870586
>Everything can be said in words. Not everything can be felt by reading them.
You cant use words to make someone respond the same way emotionally, as immediately, and as universally as a specific artwork.

>The message cannot redeem art, the message can just be a seed point for art to crystallize from.
wtf are you trying to say? What if the artists intention of the artwork is to convey a message?

also what do you have to say to my other point that debunks your ignorant sweeping statement?

>>5870497
>the reason a monet painting is good is because it's worth admiring because it's crafted expertly and many times expresses truths about the beauty of nature
kill yourself

>>5870609
nice dodge.

because I wan't to and there's nothing stopping me.

let's go back to the original question, though:

why shouldn't I kill you?

since you probably won't answer I'll move on because you know what comes next:
if there is no ought, then there is no reason for me not to kill you (nor is there one to kill you), and epistemology implodes. lemme just kill ya
basically i ought to not kill you becuase I like you a lot (:

>>5870367
But not exactly. Take music.
Music alone is sublime in that it doesn't have to imitate the world. It is it's own system. Yes, music does often have to do with emotions, but sometimes music almost is never a pure emotion and sometimes creates new emotions.
all art has two things: the closed system it works in and its reflection of the world and human experience. Music is curious, because it deals more with the former than any other art. In literature, it manifests itself in prose, metaphor, and so on.
If art were simply the latter, it'd be difficult to distinguish art and quality, subjectively and dare I say objectively.

The most interesting thing about music is that it's pretty damn easy to get at a general mood: if the mood is unpleasant, it's in a minor key and a pleasant one is in a major key. However, to get to the specifics of a mood takes ridiculous talent. These specifics are the reflection of world/human experience: let's call this the "mirror element". I spoke of earlier, but once arrived at, so much of the former - shall we say the "solitary element" - I've spoke of is implemented that it results in sublime experiences.
The most incredible thing that art does, however, is invent transcendent emotions. The greatest artists do this. I think the best example is Beethoven. In his later, dissonant contrapuntal works such as the hammerklavier finale or the grosse fuge, and in some middle period like the egmont overture there is this emotion that is so beautiful and cathartic that the human experience can't possibly match up. What I speak of is this regeneration through rage and despair. It's almost like scratching through all the shit, and somehow in all this anger you feel like an ubermensch - this feeling of power overcomes beethoven and the listener that somehow punches through the misery and it feels amazing. Only aritstic geniuses like shakespeare, joyce, beethoven, mozart, bach reach this level. And what it ends up being is the beautiful synthesis of the solitary element and the mirror element. In a way, masterpieces have a different definition than regular art. Average art is the combination of solitary and mirror elements. Masterpieces are a blend.

>>5870586
>Everything can be said in words.

babby detected

>>5870612
>You cant use words to make someone respond the same way emotionally, as immediately, and as universally as a specific artwork.
The message is distinct from the emotional response.
> wtf are you trying to say? What if the artists intention of the artwork is to convey a message?
If the artists intention is to convey a message his art might be good or bad(example good artwork with message: Full Metal Jacket)(example bad artwork with message: take your pick of fartwork). If a car manufacturers intention with a car is to convey dying in a firey inferno and he succeeds, that doesn't make it a good car automatically.
>also what do you have to say to my other point that debunks your ignorant sweeping statement?
please point it out again

>be op
>be 17
>in art gallery see pic related
>this PRETENSIOUS sculpture is trying to complicate and romanticize my simple life >:(
>i dont enjoy it so its not good
>someone could have replicated the experience of seeing this sculpture in words heaps better
>why did mom have to take me to the gallery to see this :(((

>>5870657
your whole point is that art is
>just a pretensious endeavor with it's attempts to try and complicate and romanticize our inane and simple lives
I pointed out that artists like delacroix arent trying to do this at all

>>5870162
What books about art history have you read OP?

>>5870667
inb4 no reply

>>5870367
exploring culture, interpersonal relations, identity, society, power relations, language, representation, legitimacy, etc are pretty worthwhile since we engage with these things on a daily basis. they shape who we are as people. nothing else comes close to addressing these more than art.

>>5870667
Uh, I never said that, I'm not OP. My view is just that what art is is illusion and art's purpose is enjoyment. There are lots of hacks perpetually failing at creating art(and succeeding in fooling suckers) out there, but art itself is perfectly good. Delacroix wanted to convey a message, which is fine. You could convey the message easier and clearer in words(the french revolution is good etc.) but it wouldn't have the same impact. If he made some shitty little geometrical painting and said that it was about "the french revolution is good etc" then he would still have a shitty little geometrical painting and his message would not make it better by one iota. Some messages are conductive to better art than others, "we're out of cereal" is not very good for example, like some weapons are better than wounding than others, but I can still kill you with a 9mm and a ICBM can still totally miss.

>>5870345
>Art is supposed to channel emotions and life

no it isn't. where did you read this? this is some post-romantic misunderstanding of how art functions. in fact, art has had many different purposes at many different points in history.

>>5870704
Like what?

>>5870695
your view is ignorant
>art's purpose is enjoyment
many many artists themselves have explained they make artwork for reasons unrelated to enjoyment

read just about any book on art history

>>5870695
>art's purpose is enjoyment.

not really, unless you go through lots of mental gymnastics like saying "everything people do is inherently selfish" - by that you would be avoiding fine variations between types of enjoyment

>>5870162
Pretentious is a meaningless criticism.

>>5870692
Living life well and experiencing actual things > researchbor art

>>5870714
>many many artists themselves have explained they make artwork for reasons unrelated to enjoyment
If artists make artwork that cannot be enjoyed on any level they're not artists, they're junk dealers. Name one great piece of unenjoyable art. One!

>>5870710
to make a statement
to decorate
to make the audience feel uncomfortable about something
to explore aesthetics
etc etc

this is honestly basic shit

>>5870710
basically anything before the romantic period, which wasn't that long ago. greek sculpture and portrayal of greco-roman mythology don't channel emotions or life. christian manuscripts, stained glass windows, wall-paintings and mosaics don't channel emotion.

>tfw you realize these threads aren't literature

>>5870722
art is not an actual thing? how do you figure?

>>5870740
Drawing a picture of you fucking a qt isn't as meaningful as actually fucking a qt.

>>5870729
>my personal view about what art should be >:(((
this is called an honorary definition of art, see
http://www.quia.com/files/quia/users/dring/Why_Is_That_Art_early_pages.pdf

coming from someone that is not involved in the art wolrd and has no understanding of art history

>Name one great piece of unenjoyable art
artwork like mondrians see was not made to be enjoyed
>>5870734

>>5870746
and how do you figure that?

>pretensious
>it's

I doubt you've realized shit.

>>5870659
lol

>>5870759
How do you not? One is the direct experience of sex, the other is pornography, the purpose of which is to simulate sex. If it's a purely artistic representation, it's still just a representation.

>>5870758
>artwork like mondrians see was not made to be enjoyed
I said great, not worthless hack garbage. Just because a bunch of fuckwit art critics praise it doesn't mean it's fucking praiseworthy, learn to think for yourself for gods sake. A gunsmith makes a gun that can't fire, everyone knows he's a shit gunsmith. An engineer makes a house that falls apart, everyone knows he's a shit engineer. A painter applies the fill and line functions in MS paint, everyone thinks he's a fucking master. Go read On the Geneaology of Art Games and stop deluding yourself.

>>5870796
>One is the direct experience of sex
so?

>the other is pornography
so not art. you should probably be talking about artworks rather than doodles

>it's still just a representation.
so the meaning cannot be represented? interesting but you're going to have to explain yourself further

>>5870805
>repeats a common opinion
>tells others to think for themselves

is it thinking for yourself when you say art should be figurative? lol get out of here

>>5870805
i am thinking for myself i've read about mondrian and his intentions and ive decided that artworks like that represent something great. youre think for youself too which is great :) but try educating yourself a bit more before you share your hot opinions (no actually just about every other pleb who has no knowledge of art history shares the same thoughts)

>>5870814
>so?
Don't be dense.
>so the meaning cannot be represented?
1. Yes.
2. What meaning can be represented amounts to less than the meaning of the actual act.

>>5870805
LMAO i read some of Geneaology of Art Games like you suggested and hes disagreeing with you, retard.

you say:
>If artists make artwork that cannot be enjoyed on any level they're not artists
Geneaology of Art Games says:
"The artfags, then, have somehow managed to convince themselves that art is not supposed to give pleasure — or at least not necessarily so; that, at any rate, the question of whether art gives or does not give pleasure, or perhaps even gives displeasure, is an entirely subsidiary one — perhaps even irrelevant. And our question now, as we attempt to psychoanalyze them and descend, as it were, into their souls is: how did they acquire this unfathomably absurd notion?"

>>5870177
English might not be his first language and even if it isn't a spelling error does not make his opinion invalid.

>>5870920
maybe but the opinion isnt valid anyways
the spelling errors are just another clue that op is probably an uneducated teen

>>5870345
/r/4chan

>this fucking thread

back to /v/ dumbfuck

>>5870284
More like die harder

I get your point but not your reaction image. It's wonderful to fully understand art (and in fact, life, if you have that point of view).

Cheer up, mate.

>>5870162
If you believe this to be the case, then why did Kafka predict Derrida's author-ghosts a good 20-30 years before Signature Event Context was written? Why were writers such as De Quincey and Charlotte Bronte able to realise the mind 'palimpsest' long before it was adopted by Freud?

art isn't merely a reflection or romanticisation of life, in fact often it realises certain truths about life which were never truly clear to us before. It phrases things in such a way that they become comprehendible to us