/lit/ - Literature

>>6722246
>/lit/, is there any decent literature on what is going on in contemporary art?

countless books, articles, essays. try the library. the titles are pretty obvious

>Does it go beyond "I dare you to say this is not art"?

it always has been beyond this

>>6722253
>countless books, articles, essays. try the library. the titles are pretty obvious
You could not intuit that I was asking for quality? Obviously there are lots of works on this topic, the key word in my OP is the word "decent".

>it always has been beyond this
How so?

>>6722280
>You could not intuit that I was asking for quality?

lol how do you expect the quality to differ that greatly? do you not read nonfiction very often?

besides you're talking about contemporary art. there's no consensus on what is best representative of contemporary art because... it's contemporary

>How so?

how much about art do you even know? like you haven't even read wikipedia?

>>6722296
>lol
stop that
>how do you expect the quality to differ that greatly?
>countless books, articles, essays
>countless
Well, you just told me there are countless works on this topic.

Why would anyone ever think they are all of the same quality? That is pretty ridiculous.

>do you not read nonfiction very often?
No need to be so passive aggressive. You are just not being very articulate when trying to answer a question that only requires a single book title for its answer.

>how much about art do you even know? like you haven't even read wikipedia?
Same as above.

Also, you have the option to not reply, Mr. ButtBlasted.

>>6722308
>Why would anyone ever think they are all of the same quality?

why would anyone think they're not? it's nonfiction. the quality won't differ greatly

and again, it's contemporary. no consensus

>only requires a single book title for its answer.

see above

also just do your own research

>Also, you have the option to not reply

you have the option to delete your thread and do your own research

it's really not that hard to do your own research

do your own research

don't look for /lit/ to hold your hand because you think you will find a poor quality book or essay on contemporary art and it will ruin your life

do your own research

>>6722315
>why would anyone think they're not? it's nonfiction. the quality won't differ greatly

That is not true. If there are "countless" or a large quantity of work there is bound to be variety. Why are you adamant on this position that nonfiction = constant quality? Please attempt to explain this.

>and again, it's contemporary. no consensus
That means nothing. If there are still that many works, then it is the same as what I said in the above.

>also just do your own research
>do your own research
>do your own research
Please stop throwing a tantrum like a child. Embarrassing.

If you do not want to talk about the topic (you clearly do not) then go spend your free time else where.

You can whine and complain about not wanting me to talk to others about this topic all you want, too bad.

>>6722361
>That is not true.

yes it is. try doing your own research and finding out

>Please stop throwing a tantrum like a child

stop asking for hand-holding like a child. you haven't even attempted to look for books yourself but you're trying to tell me of their quality? while asking people to help you?

you're spending time making and replying to this thread when you could have finished the wikipedia articles on modern and contemporary art by now

>>6722373
>yes it is. try doing your own research and finding out
So you are just going to throw out conclusions are then when asked to justify you are just going to say that others will do the work for you? How oddly evasive of you.

>stop asking for hand-holding like a child.
Having a conversation about a given topic is not hand holding.

You also assume that I am not looking up other works on my own are have not read any topics on my own.

You are just angry and are no longer making sense. Take a breather already.

You could copy and paste everything you said to any given topic that starts as "what is your favorite x, what do you think of x, what is considered the best of x, etc".

What is REALLY strange is that you are inconsistent.

Why, if this topic "has no consensus", would you point me to wiki? If a topic has no consensus, it is the very topic to be discussed.

You are visibly shaken.

>>6722387
>So you are just going to throw out conclusions are then when asked to justify you are just going to say that others will do the work for you? How oddly evasive of you.

what? i'm saying pick up literally any book on contemporary art. how do you suppose they aren't decent? they call the mona lisa contemporary or something?

>Having a conversation about a given topic is not hand holding.

asking for someone to do your work for you is not having a conversation

>You also assume that I am not looking up other works on my own are have not read any topics on my own.

rightly so

>You could copy and paste everything you said to any given topic

yes i usually tell people to do their own research

>inconsistent.

lol

>Why, if this topic "has no consensus", would you point me to wiki?

seriously? they will still give you information but they will make clear there is also no consensus

not sure this board is for you champ

>>6722415
>how do you suppose they aren't decent?
Written poorly, making poor arguments, outdated quickly, poor examples, etc.

I mean really.

>asking for someone to do your work for you is not having a conversation
Good thing I am not asking someone to do my work for me.

>rightly so
Well no, but go ahead. I am sure it makes you feel more secure in what you are saying.

>they will still give you information but they will make clear there is also no consensus
I guess that point flew over your head.

If something has already been argued to death and there is nothing more to get from it, it wont do much good to try a discussion on it. People will just point you to a place where the answer is.

If the topic has not been decided, like the value of a work that has just come out, it is worth discussion for a manifold of reasons.

In both cases, it is clear that asking the question itself is not a problem. Someone replying "go anywhere else for the answer" is a problem, because it is stupid. If you know where the answer is, then point to it. If you know there is no answer and have some opinion on the topic, give it. You clearly do not though so please do not.

>not sure this board is for you champ
Hiding behind the board is pretty pathetic, but again I am sure it makes you feel better so whatever.

>>6722432
Buddy just fuck off

>>6722436
Again you are free to not be here, but it is ok. You just want the last word or something because you are angry.

>>6722441
I'm not even the guy you've been arguing with, I just think you're too obstuse and aspergic to use this board and really to glean any value from works about contemporary art.

>>6722446
That is a nice opinion you have here.

>>6722449
You're embarrassing yourself. Just delete this thread and walk away, no harm no foul

>>6722432
>Written poorly, making poor arguments, outdated quickly, poor examples, etc.

lol right so you just think there is no quality control for works on contemporary art?

>Good thing I am not asking someone to do my work for me.

you are. you suppose someone has gone through books on contemporary art and has weeded out all the 'non-decent' books so you can jump right in and spend absolutely no effort on researching the subject and end up at the same conclusions. you're an intellectual fraud. i could tell from "Does it go beyond "I dare you to say this is not art"?"

> If you know where the answer is, then point to it. If you know there is no answer and have some opinion on the topic, give it. You clearly do not though so please do not.

i said go to a library where you can read countless books, articles, essays, which all make up the current discussion on contemporary art. you won't get a consensus on it but you can see the different types of arguments and analysis going on, which is the best you can do in contemporary art. the point is to read everything you can. if you somehow find something of low quality, put it down and read something else. it won't kill you. maybe you'll see its quality later, when you know a little more about the subject. i gave you your suggestion: go out and read about it.

>Hiding behind the board is pretty pathetic, but again I am sure it makes you feel better so whatever.

yeah sorry, it's a much better idea to hide behind continuously posting 'ur mad'

>>6722246
Is this thread just an elaborate way of pushing the agenda that art, as well as art criticism, has degenerated?

I want you to give me an example of classic art criticism which passes your criteria.

just go back to /a/, if you have to read about art and don't just feel the contemporary aesthetic in your bones then you dont have it in you

>>6722453
I am really not. This is an anonymous board, what you said makes no sense.

It is a nice attempt though.

>>6722458
this a hundred times over

>>6722456
>lol
please stop
> right so you just think there is no quality control for works on contemporary art?
I have no idea how you made that jump in logic. You must have misread what I said because I was talking about literature about contemporary art, and I think you read that as contemporary art itself.

>you are. you suppose someone has gone through books on contemporary art and has weeded out all the 'non-decent' books so you can jump right in and spend absolutely no effort on researching the subject and end up at the same conclusions. you're an intellectual fraud. i could tell from "Does it go beyond "I dare you to say this is not art"?"
Right, because learning from others that came before you is fraud.

What a joke. I am sure you learned English on your own, Mr.SincereButtBlasted?

>i said go to a library...
Now you are just missing the point.

>yeah sorry, it's a much better idea to hide behind continuously posting 'ur mad'
You seem mad, if you are not then good.

>>6722457
>Is this thread just an elaborate way of pushing the agenda that art, as well as art criticism, has degenerated?
No. Not sure how you got that.

>>6722458
>don't just feel the contemporary aesthetic in your bones
Nice try.

>>6722476
>Nice try.
it's absolutely true, but if you wanna delude yourself then more power to you kiddo

>>6722482
>it's absolutely true
Nah, but really, good effort.

>>6722476
>>6722486
>replies "nice try" to anything that contradicts his worldview
>repeatedly accuses people of being mad or butthurt
>posts anime reaction images
You sure you're going to be able to meaningfully use secondary sources about contemporary art, OP? It's high level stuff, you know. I recommend you start with something your level, such as the Very Hungry Caterpillar.

>>6722486
>>6722476
>>6722460
>>6722449
>>6722441
>>6722432
>>6722387
>>6722361
>>6722308
>>6722280
lmfao @ this pleb

Judging from the reaction images you've posted, you likely know nothing about art, and are as such in no position to judge the quality of nonfiction works about contemporary art. Get fucked.

>>6722491
>You sure you're going to be able to meaningfully use secondary sources about contemporary art, OP?
Oh yeah definitely.

Just to let you know, when you attempt these guessing games to try and get at someone, when you just guess wrong, it does not work.

I mean, it is pretty easy to see why someone would post short answer like "nice try" besides...whatever it is you are trying to imply.

I could just find you boring and not worth the effort, while at the same time trying not to come off as hostile so you do not want to post again to get the last word in.

>>6722500
Who painted this ?

op is prolly underage and now i feel bad for insulting him

>>6722499
>Judging from the reaction images you've posted
Oh, very relevant to the topic.

>you likely know nothing about art
Well if I knew a great deal I probably would not have made this thread? Sort of stupid of you.

>and are as such in no position to judge the quality of nonfiction works about contemporary art
Oh I am hurt.

>>6722476
>You must have misread what I said because I was talking about literature about contemporary art, and I think you read that as contemporary art itself.

no, i read what you said. you assume that there is no quality control for opinions, analysis, etc. -- that people literally just make shit up and try to get away with it

>because learning from others that came before you is fraud.

lol what a strange interpretation of what i said. your fraudulence comes from your intellectual laziness and dilettantism. you don't engage with the arts but you want to pretend to have the opinions of those who do. you're not 'learning' at all. if you did you wouldn't be asking bait questions like this total shit:

>"Does it go beyond "I dare you to say this is not art"

>Now you are just missing the point.

no, you are missing the point. you just completely cut out my elaboration on the point. don't you wonder why i wouldn't offer elaboration in the first place? you're not someone who can deal with elaboration. you want the easy way. contemporary art is not easy, and again this board is not for you.

>>6722504
Little blue triangle and google search it for you. First results that show up. A lot of his work looks like that image so you should like it.

>>6722506
I am not so don't be.

>>6722513
Pretty good indeed.

>>6722509
He's right though, if you really wanna learn about art you need to be less arrogant about the supposed quality of sources and just absorb whatever information you can get, instead of setting some arbitrary standard.

>>6722511
>no, i read what you said. you assume that there is no quality control for opinions, analysis, etc. -- that people literally just make shit up and try to get away with it
That is not what I said.

See this is why I said stop getting so upset. Now you are just reading into things.

Think about it. It is entirely possible that there is one work that makes a poorer argument than another, or is written in a very archaic style, or uses not relevant examples, or whatever. That is not that hard to imagine.

That also does NOT mean that I am looking for some objective whatever, which I think is what you think I am saying.

>lol
please, it is just so cringey

>what a strange interpretation...
You can keep on assuming things in an attempt to sting me. It isn't working. I mean you are not even making argument anymore. You are just throwing things in a fit in the hopes that something hits.

>no, you are missing the point...
Again you are just throwing things. You are not making any arguments but attempt to appear like you are.

>>6722534

>>6722458
it's easy to feel the A E S T H E T I C, but if you want to explain it, having read books about art helps quite a bit

that said i definitely agree OP should go back to /a/

>>6722534
>quote wars

That's not how you argue btw
I can see you're new to this and think discussing is a rap battle, a tennis match. It's not.

>>6722520
>He's right though
No he is not. I have some friends who are art majors and they would not just assume that the essays they write about art are as good as their professors.

What you are saying is just silly. I have no idea why you are defending it.

I mean I do appreciate that you are at least trying to make a point, but to just that all works on a given topic and all of the same quality just seems bizarre.

You have favorites I am sure. To choose one over another is completely natural and fine.

>>6722545
It just helps with clarity. Why are you against it?

>>6722520
>He's right though
No he is not. I have some friends who are art majors and they would not just assume that the essays they write about art are as good as their professors.

What you are saying is just silly. I have no idea why you are defending it.

I mean I do appreciate that you are at least trying to make a point, but to just say that all works on a given topic are all of the same quality just seems bizarre.

You have favorites I am sure. To choose one over another is completely natural and fine.

>>6722554
Because it stretches specific points to the infinite as both parties keep replying to it in a worthless rhetoric battle.

Not the guy you're replying to but you're both too busy to clinch to your pride to actually move forward and echange ideas. Is that what one of you even wants to do ?

>>6722558
yes, so go read a bunch of them, and come back and tell us your favorites dumbass

also honestly until you understand to some degree both romanticism and modernism, you're probably not going to have any luck with rigorous academic study of contemporary art, and i am completely unwilling to believe you have that understanding

>>6722534
> It is entirely possible that there is one work that makes a poorer argument than another, or is written in a very archaic style, or uses not relevant examples, or whatever. That is not that hard to imagine.

this assumes there's no quality control for works written about contemporary art. do you think editors of essay collections and surveys on contemporary artists don't know what they're talking about? they just put in poor arguments to keep people on their toes? also 'archaic style' wtf, do you even know what contemporary art is?

can you tell me what the last book or anything you read on art was? i'm not sure how 'relevant examples' is even a thing worth mentioning. like do you think people just namedrop a work of art and don't elaborate on why they included it?

so yes it is hard to imagine because i actually have experience reading books, articles, and essays on contemporary art.

i'll say again: just do some reading. it's not hard. turn off the computer or put it on sleep or whatever, go to some place that has books on contemporary art (probably a library), find the relevant section (they'll all be in the same area), identify something you want to read by the title (like i said, the titles are obvious) and have a little read. do you think it matters that much if some stranger on the internet gave you a title, compared to just finding one on a shelf?

like fuck, do you even know what you're talking about?

> I mean you are not even making argument anymore

i am. i literally just reiterated my point of going out and reading any book on the subject. it's not hard. it's really not. do you want /lit/ to know that you have some shallow interest in contemporary art? you want that gratification? you want to bait responses on a subject you evidently know nothing about, by asking stupid questions in your OP

>You are not making any arguments but attempt to appear like you are.

do i need to come up with some more arguments other than "yes, decent literature on contemporary art exists" and "yes, it goes beyond 'i dare you to say this is not art' because it always has" because they're not sufficiently addressing your initial questions?

you're the one who doesn't want to argue anymore. you're just trying to defend your dignity. let's look at your recent responses:

>you don't understand!
>(the same shit about quality)
>you don't understand!
>stop saying lol!
>stop assuming things!
>stop assuming things!

>>6722563
Well no. I mean if someone makes a large post it begs a large post in response to all of the former's points. Quotes just add clarity, though I guess they might give the appearance of making an argument go longer than in should, when really it is just the actual argument itself going on for a while regardless of quotes or not.

(See no quotes here just an indent, you only made two points)
I really have no pride in this. Appearances I can't control, I just want a suggestion or a conversation on my topic.

I mean, people are trying to discuss the point all works on this topic are all of the same quality. And they are trying to defend it, I just think they are doing it poorly.

I don't get that point, sure. Besides that it is just mud slinging from the other side that "I don't get art" or "I don't belong here". Which is silly.

>>6722558
student essays are literature?

regardless they still use the same sources as professors would

>>6722585
It doesn't add clarity, it's an intellectually dishonest tool that helps you disembowel and destructurate your interlocutor's thought process to be better able to nitpick it and build a whole rhetoric counter-argument against it.

I know this because I do it all the time since I'm a complete asshole. (also Schopenhauer)

You would have absolutely no problems to reply with a full paragraph, so why chose this lesser option ? You could even argue all in greentext, while you're at it.

>I really have no pride in this
I would like to believe this, but sadly we see very little constructive discussions, even on this board deemed "intelligent". Insults flying around, memes, aggressivity, shitposting.

>>6722585
are you from reddit or something? you post like a moron

>>6722585
you know what would make people not say you don't get art and you don't belong here?

maybe if you showed any actual interest in art or reading i.e. not asking what to read about art and just reading about art

>>6722246
Your question is too vague/broad and you either need to be painfully specific or do your own research to find what you actually want, as the other anon replied. ;Cntemporary art' isn't a 'movement', afterall, it's things that are currently happening and right now we're in a melting pot of 'everything has been done so we'll do all of it at the same time' with some common themes in certain areas.

If you really want to gain some understanding on the subject, though, with literature as an entry point it might be best to either read some Barthes or Saussure OR read some thought provoking fiction that can in a lot of cases be considered an artwork in itself and trace the history forward from there; in which case I'd recommend Kobo Abe as an entry point to video art by way of the film adaptation of the "Face of Another" and critical theorists dealing with semiotics, memetics and a couple big name reviewers (most of whom aren't worth taking all too seriously) to gauge your findings off of.

... But mainly do your own research, at least to the point where you can specify what you're looking for.

>>6722567
>yes, so go read a bunch of them, and come back and tell us your favorites dumbass
You can just keep saying that and I will just keep asking, which ones?

>also honestly until you understand to some degree both romanticism and modernism, you're probably not going to have any luck with rigorous academic study of contemporary art, and i am completely unwilling to believe you have that understanding
Ok that is interesting. Why do you think that? and hey, if you do not want to go through a long conversation about that, you could just recommend some book that argues the point. I mean really that is all I have been saying here

>this assumes there's no quality control for works written about contemporary art.
No it does not. It assumes that there is variety.

>can you tell me what the last book or anything you read on art was?
Gardner's Art through the Ages

> i'm not sure how 'relevant examples' is even a thing worth mentioning.
They might think one artist represents a certain movement or technique when another might be more valuable in the discussion. Like not including Cezanne when discussing the beginnings of Post-Impressionism would be odd.

>do you think it matters that much if some stranger on the internet gave you a title, compared to just finding one on a shelf?
You are making what you are discussing sound like some grand errand.

It is not. Calm the fuck down guy. You are just sitting in a chair while on a computer. I am not taxing you of some great deal, and if I am, just leave. Yes, I am asking for a suggestion while looking up on my own. Like, woah. These things aren't mutually exclusive. This is not a big deal. Why are you so binary? That I must do one or the other?

The rest of what you said is just nothing, such as acting like I did not need to remind of the word "decent" in my OP, with your first response simply saying "yes there are other works out there". It is just more of the same.

You keep saying that all these works are of the same quality. Alright, your point is made. You can go now.

>>6722591
Their essays have been published, yes. You can argue that those aren't the same, I think you know what I meant, that there are just a variety of writers out there.

>>6722642
>all this ideology and worthless rhetoric

So, any books about this? I'm curious and don't care about two zpergs arguing. If you don't want to help, don't reply and move on to another thread.

>>6722642
you look so stupid and probably think you're winning this Debate lmfao

>>6722650
read Valery's 1937 conference that gives valuable insight on the nature of art and modern art

>>6722654
This

>>6722642
>>6722585
>>6722558
>>6722534
>>6722509
>>6722500
>>6722486
>>6722460
>>6722449
>>6722441
>>6722432
>>6722387
>>6722361
>>6722308
>>6722280
>>6722246
lol

>>6722608
>I would like to believe this, but sadly we see very little constructive discussions, even on this board deemed "intelligent". Insults flying around, memes, aggressivity, shitposting.
Well you are free to believe what you want, but you are wrong. I can't prove it but it doesn't really matter does it?

>You would have absolutely no problems to reply with a full paragraph
Well word count is obviously a problem. Quotes helps lower that when you do not fully want to rephrase everything. It also helps with speed, since it can be difficult to keep up with multiple posters. And it does add clarity, like bullet points. You might think they can be used manipulatively, which you are right they can be, but I am not using them manipulatively here.

>>6722634
What you are saying does not make sense. People interested in art ask for recommendations on what to read in art. Everyone does not automatically know everything about art once they "gain interest"

>Your question is too vague/broad and you either need to be painfully specific or do your own research to find what you actually want, as the other anon replied. ;Cntemporary art' isn't a 'movement', afterall, it's things that are currently happening and right now we're in a melting pot of 'everything has been done so we'll do all of it at the same time' with some common themes in certain areas.

If you really want to gain some understanding on the subject, though, with literature as an entry point it might be best to either read some Barthes or Saussure OR read some thought provoking fiction that can in a lot of cases be considered an artwork in itself and trace the history forward from there; in which case I'd recommend Kobo Abe as an entry point to video art by way of the film adaptation of the "Face of Another" and critical theorists dealing with semiotics, memetics and a couple big name reviewers (most of whom aren't worth taking all too seriously) to gauge your findings off of.

... But mainly do your own research, at least to the point where you can specify what you're looking for.

Thanks, that is all I was asking for.

>>6722642
you're responding to two different people in this comment

as the writer of the comment you're quoting

i can't tell you, i study literature and occasionally cinema but nothing post 2000, but seriously just go read some everyone's tired of hearing you win

and re: modernism/romanticism, postmodernism is currently (or perhaps, we will later say, was up until shortly), to paraphrase jameson, the field which all cultural production is embedded in and must contend with

to understand postmodernism, you need an okay understanding of modernism, for an okay understanding of modernism you need at least a basic understanding of romanticism

>>6722665
*whine lol, you're not winning

>>6722663
Of course it matters, are you not interested in helping me hold a less wrong opinion ? That's not very nice of you. I respect your point of view, though.

I still am not fond of this fast-food simili arguing. Word counts really aren't a problem, it's easy to be concise, especially in english. Oh well.

>>6722649
>Buzzwords

>>6722650
>>6722655
Thanks.

>>6722654
>>6722657
"Winning" never crossed my mind. You are probably projecting.

>>6722246
I like that your idea of "what's going on on contemporary art" refers to stuff being done 70 years ago. I'm sure you've read enough to discuss art in the literature board, OP.

>>6722671
The position you are holding can be changed based on how you perceive me and I have no idea who you are.

I can try talking differently but how would I know.

>>6722678
at first I hated you, now I think you're okay.

>>6722678
I do not know why you are saying that.

>>6722682
I'm a chill dude who can ask for an additional serving of dessert without being rude.

>>6722687
That doesn't help me.

>>6722642
>It assumes that there is variety.

and that variety ranges from complete nonsense to 'decent'? come on dude, there is quality control -- publishing houses that publish books exclusively on art, journals dedicated to art discussion, etc. the quality doesn't vary as widely as you imagine. books on certain works or artists will be more detailed and usually there are multiple books on more important artists.

>Gardner's Art through the Ages

something tells me you didn't read the entirety of this from cover to cover. i major in art history and i've barely used my copy. surveys are more reference materials than learning about art through reading. wide reading is better, which is why i've been suggesting it to you.

>They might think one artist represents a certain movement or technique

contemporary art 'movement' or 'technique'?

>Like not including Cezanne when discussing the beginnings of Post-Impressionism would be odd.

if there is anything like this you will find another work that points out this discrepancy. wide reading is key

>You are making what you are discussing sound like some grand errand.

you are making finding some books about contemporary art sound like some grand errand. you're making it difficult for yourself by assuming there's some wild variety in quality, which i've told you isn't true. and you would have realised this if you had done some very basic research beforehand instead of being scared of actually committing to reading/art

>I am not taxing you of some great deal

i know, i sufficiently answered your question in my wholly innocuous very first post. you're the one who flipped out in response to it

>That I must do one or the other?

lol what? doing one means the other isn't necessary.

>Alright, your point is made.

what? you're not having a fit about how i'm wrong for giving you an answer you asked for?

>>6722691
It's a pretty complex description if you think about it for a minute.

Just because you guys know more about this subject than he does, doesn't mean you can make fun of him or whatever, teach him instead, point to sources, anything but 40 posts of cringy shit.

>>6722695
You can stop now. Another anon already gave me a recommendation that I am looking into. I am not going to be reading your replies.

Also, for the anon looking for Aesthetics books. I used to be big into Frankfurt but lately I really liked Heidegger's The Origin of the Work of Art. If it's a bit too much to just picki up and read I don't have at hand the secondary read I had for it, next time we have an art thread I'll be home and you can ask me.
I also respect a lot the work of Gadamer, I can't find the title I'm looking for but SEP has a decent sinopsis of his general ideas that includes some stuff I hadn't read before: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer-aesthetics/

>>6722663
>People interested in art ask for recommendations on what to read in art.

oh true, i forgot that libraries try to keep a large stock of outdated books they wouldn't recommend to anyone trying to read about a given subject

having some fucking sense man!

>>6722701
all these posts could have been avoided if he just went to a damn library

>>6722702
Hey op, don't bother with the art history major guy, he's obviously a real douche. If he was any smart he'd have helped you, instead he prefers to show a bunch of anons how cool and snob he is for not answering the op.

>>6722701
is there any other way to respond to a bait question?

>>6722246
There is samefagging going on. where the fuck are the trips when we need them

>>6722705
Thanks man, I have already read Being and Time so hopefully it won't be too much.

Does he go into rants about anti-technology or anything like that?

>>6722710
i did help him by recommending wide reading lol his loss if he doesn't take my word for it

>>6722709
Why do you say that? If i was op that would be a shitty excuse as there are no libraries nearby. Not everyone can walk down the road and find thousands of books on art you know.

>>6722713
Giving some sources like some anon did?

>>6722683
I always loved you, anon.

>>6722684
Because the discussion of the conceptual value behind the work of art has been worked since the early 20th century and all through it. It's no longer contemporary. Now people obsess over intermedia and remediation.

>>6722716
>I have read being and time

somehow i doubt this after reading all of your retarded ass posts

>>6722705
>Heidegger
The guy at one stage wrote that everything he previously published was wrong.
I'm an art-doer myself and any peers I've had who enjoyed Heidegger happened to be the most insufferable, pseudo-intellectual shits I've ever encountered.

But I hope you enjoy your reading nonetheless.

>>6722717
>lol
Are you a chick or 12? Or both? I know we are all supposedly both but no really.

>>6722718
sources that go beyond "I dare you to say this is not art"?

he's not narrowing it down very much

>>6722723
are you from reddit

>>6722723
lol

>>6722716
No, he analysis a work by Van Gogh and presents an interpretation of how art creates a self contained universe while also blocking the view of it. At least at the moment I feel that's the strongest aproach to classical art and its transformation into modern art.
Gadamer is more about how our use of the term art is misleadingly limited to european art and there are other aproaches that can understand it including modern, classical and primitive art. It's more of an antropological aproach if you want.I find Gadame a much easier read than Heidegger, too.

>>6722717
Just be yourself and help other lol

>>6722724
You do know that's the common concept of what is art right? Do you ever talk to people? My dad, for example, thinks Kandinsky is funny and is only art because that Russian weirdo said so! That's what art is to most people. OP knows that much and he wants to go further.

>>6722722
What if he was wrong when saying he was wrong? What then, uh?
But really, if his analysis makes sense that's all there is to it. It's not about authority but argumentation.
And people who like Heidgger tend to be insuferable because it's sort of a challenge to fully understand him (and many will discuss how you're wrong when thinking you have), it attracs THAT kind of people. That shouldn't take away from his content, though.

>>6722729
I'm out of spell check right now. I hope I don't ruin my points by having atrocious morning enlgish.

>>6722734
i think people know they're being inflammatory when saying things like that. certainly not a great way to ask for recommendations

>hey i think your interest is fucking trash
>recommend me actual decent works on your interest because i know (but not from experience) that the bulk of it is total unreadable shit

>yfw op is a qt

>>6722742
That is the best defense of Heidegger I've ever been given, you're alright anon.

>>6722746
people who arent ugly are usually retards so probably.

>>6722743
You should have reported b8 and moved on. You didn't. That's good, since the OP isn't really b8,try reading it again. It first asks for recommendations, then it asks if it goes beyond that. Did you only read the last sentence? Your lack of interpretation is showing on the /lit/ board.

>>6722751
Sour grapes ladies and gentlemen

>>6722762
Why are you pretending you arent the op

>>6722770
He isn't

>>6722750
thanks but it's really nothing too original.

>>6722751
I'm sorry no one ever fought to protect your smile, but that generalization is completely baseless.

>>6722762
>That's good, since the OP isn't really b8,try reading it again.

which is why i offered a suggestion and replied to (both) his questions

>Did you only read the last sentence?

yes i did. the response i gave to his first question was a total fluke. i just copy-pasted it without reading it and hoped for the best when i typed random words into the database mainframe

>>6722770
I'm not the op, even the way we type is different if you didn't notice. Ugly boy.

>>6722781
Thanks for confirming it

>>6722779
Your suggestion was "lol try to find it yourself", when he asked for books on the subject. You didn't answer anything, you only made yourself feel good by posting that.

>>6722787

>>6722791

>>6722796
shut up, amelie putain.

>>6722791
>>6722796
both freaks.

>>6722802
>>6722808
ILL FUCKING FIGHT YOU

>>6722790
>when he asked for books on the subject

he asked if they existed. i said yes. i suggested they were all decent for an understanding of contemporary art

cue response from him telling me they're not, without having read any. interesting

>You didn't answer anything

i did. i just did so without falling into his strange reasoning

>>6722817
>he asked if they existed. i said yes. i suggested they were all decent for an understanding of contemporary art
>cue response from him telling me they're not, without having read any. interesting

You can't be this retarded. God help if someone asks you to read anything.

>>6722822
worthless rhetoric

God damn this thread is pure shit. Confirms my suspicion that /lit/ can't discuss anything beyond DFW and Nietzsche. Try this op https://books.google.com/books?id=sONpzGAAlcMC&q=air+guitar&dq=air+guitar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AwuIVYSAGIqwggT4wIK4Bw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA

>>6722827
I called you retarded because you don't have the basic fucking abilities to intuit when others are speaking to you.

Him asking that question wasn't asking if they just existed for christ's aske. Any five year old can tell you what is going on and is being asked. He is asking for a recommendation and using a short phrase to get across.

But that is clearly too much for you. You'll go on I am sure that he should be more clear, because for a fuck up like you, this is too much. God help you.

>>6722817
Holy fuck, are you autistic? He obviously asked for specific books, since it's OBVIOUS these books exist in the first place. And they didn't tell you they're not decent, he told you that not all books are equally as good. Holy shit, did you even complete middle school? Fucking unbeliavable, I should be studying but I'm here laughing at this stupidity and I don't care if it's b8 or not.

Do you have to read someone saying that contemporary art is bad to know it mostly is ?
Read about the life of old painters from medieval era and renaissance, Vasari's life of artists, etc.
Seiobo there below too.

>>6722837
And to go on, his response wasn't "they aren't", you insecure fuckboy, he just asked for something specific, something that is not complete trash.

But again, too much for our little princess.

>>6722837
Why are you referringto yourself in third person?

>>6722861
Oh boy, one fuck up that you will hold on dearly to hide behind.

Doesn't get around everything else that was said

>>6722822
>God help if someone asks you to read anything.

what?

>>6722861
I called you retarded.

The rest was referring to the OP

>>6722876
Read
>>6722837
>>6722854
>>6722860

>>6722837
and i answered him saying he didn't need a recommendation and in fact wide reading was better. he should have done some basic research first before asking such a vague question. no one knows what he's looking for in books on contemporary art. it took him half the conversation to define 'decent'

>>6722854
he told me not all books are equally as good in response to me saying that they were decent. books can all be not as good while still passing a benchmark of 'decency', which is why i went on to say how there is quality control, etc. you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. you're the same kind of clueless shithead who doesn't know how to think through anything

>>6722880
yeah still not relevant m8

>>6722889
Not really, it's extremely easy to publish whatever you want. You obviously has never tried to find good scientific articles.

Even by your logic, we'd have decent books, let's say they're a 5/10. There are great books, with a grade of 7/10 or even more. There are more 5/10 books than 7/10 books and I don't want to waddle and read subpar stuff when I can have someone tell me which books are worth my time and which ones aren't. You dense motherfucker.

Yeah so OP here, I got some recs to go through and I would rather that the anons who are dying for the last word on being right when they clearly are not spend their free time doing something else. I will delete this thing in a few.

Thanks to everyone who gave recs and does not have anger problems.

>>6722915
>Even by your logic, we'd have decent books, let's say they're a 5/10. There are great books, with a grade of 7/10 or even more. There are more 5/10 books than 7/10 books and I don't want to waddle and read subpar stuff when I can have someone tell me which books are worth my time and which ones aren't. You dense motherfucker.
You get it.

>>6722246
I think we should abandon this thread tbh.

>>6722915
>Not really, it's extremely easy to publish whatever you want.

not all these books end up in art sections of the library

>You obviously has never tried to find good scientific articles.

scientific articles aren't comparable to discussion about contemporary art

>when I can have someone tell me which books are worth my time and which ones aren't.

by his definition, how many books do you think have poor wording, poor argumentation, poor examples, and antiquated wording or whatever?

you don't even know what you're arguing about. are you trying to tell me now that there are a bunch of non-decent books on contemporary art too without reading a single one?

god fucking damn where do you people come from

>>6722930
People will prefer some over others.

Stop being so fucking retarded.

>>6722916
>who are dying for the last word on being right when they clearly are not

The irony. Couldn't help yourself?

>>6722938

>>6722933
yeah a preference that wasn't even elaborated on until much later in the conversation. i covered this already

holy fuck learn to read

>Error: You cannot delete a post this old.
This is hell

>>6722942
It was vague because I did not know much about contemporary art which is why I asked the question in the first place. You dense mother fucker.

You are acting like what I asked for was so difficult. Others did what you could not. Get over it.

>>6722956
>It was vague because I did not know much about contemporary art which is why I asked the question in the first place. You dense mother fucker.

oh you just picked up enough knowledge about contemporary art during the conversation to finally qualify the word 'decent' with reference to other art history? fraud, please

>You are acting like what I asked for was so difficult.

this again? i told you what to do

>Others did what you could not.

but i did

>Get over it.

ayy