/lit/ - Literature

When the very essence of artistic expression was made into a commodity to he bought and sold to the consumerist collective, just as its trying to do with every human experience

1st October, 2003.

>>6961221
With the birth of vidya

>>6961221

Same time that Patronage took off as the main-source of Art, as opposed to the sense of duty that truly talent people feel they have to create Art.

When this print sold for $35k

It didn't. There is just much more of it in varying quality. Technology has also increased to the point that recreation of life is increasingly passe since you can program a machine to do it for you much more accurately with the exception of the written word.

>>6961221
Art can't die.

You just want some particular form or set of aesthetics that is irrelevant to modern existence.

>>6961221
Art has always been financed by rich patrons or buyers. Whatever the rich can use as investments that also conspicuously signal wealth gets considered art. This means art is subject to the upper-class fashions of the day. It just so happens that in the modern/postmodern period these fashions are quite artless, so we're left with non-Art "art". But fashions are fickle; give it a century or two and you'll have your Art again.

>>6961221
>one of his fingers going over the cloth
Beautiful.

>>6961260
I can't "die", but it can lose value, which it has. >>6961256 Case in point.

>>6961260
>irrelevant
>clearly relevant to OP
loosen the fedora

art reached it's peak in 1994

>implying art is dead when pieces like this are being produced nearly every month
Seriously if you just fucking did some research you'd find that Art is *far* from dead

This motherfucker

This motherfucker right here not only tied the noose, he put it around Art's neck and kicked the chair out from under her.

>>6961282
>>6961256
This isn't death. This isn't a loss of value.

It's the assumption that art is something that should be monetarily valued that is responsible for what you hate about postmodern art but this type of art which is driven by the speculative art market is irrelevant as well. There's nothing worse about a multicolored print of the word anus than an oil painting of pink nude women prancing around. Both are completely vapid.

The art that says something, that relates to human experience will and has always existed and no matter how many prints of picrelated exist, that will not change the fact that relevant art exists.

>>6961334
>There's nothing worse about a multicolored print of the word anus than an oil painting of pink nude women prancing around. Both are completely vapid.
Jesus christ are you actually retarded? Is this babby's first art discussion?

>>6961349
>Both are completely vapid

>>6961334
Somone should try to sell this.

>>6961304

kek

26th of September, 1992

>There's nothing worse about a multicolored print of the word anus than an oil painting of pink nude women prancing around. Both are completely vapid.

lol why do i even post on this board

>>6961349
Are you going to say anything?

>>6961349
>>6961447
Really, you both need to get off your aesthete horses and realize that pretty pictures are stimulating as pop music and serve an identical purpose in their respective cultures.

bro if you knew the backstory to this semen collage and previous pieces it was responding to, you'd totally see how it was art and not just uninspired trash

>>6961260

>>6961309

>Doesn't think Dada isn't Art

Your average /lit/poster, everyone!

>>6961462
totally dude, aesthetic art is just a social construct

fuck outta here

Defend this painting in a way that doesn't provide an analgous argument that would apply to this song.

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

keep in mind that words like "beauty" and "merit" are, despite what some believe, subjective.

>>6961539
You seem to have misplaced your substantive argument, anon. Can help you try to find it?

>>6961236
Art has always been a subject of commission or patronage?

>>6961250
so youre saying nothing after the cave paintings was legitimate art?

artists have been saying art is dead for decades now. there is literally not a single unique (or worthwhile) comment that will be made in this thread.

>>6961334
>this guy

>>6961542
>dismisses beauty and merit as grounds for objective taste
>otoh thinks equating the paintings to katy perry songs is a decidedly more objective assessment

fucking kill yourself

>>6961542
B-but this song is great

>>6961553
the attached pic you dead inside pomo faggot

>>6961566
Please stick around to explain to everyone why you like the song when they all claim it's "crass".

>>6961574
There is nothing of particular substance there, anon. Are you going to start talking about the craftsmanship involved in its creation?

yall calling yourselves patricians and you dont even know a speck about art and its history lmfao

It isn't dead.
Get over it already, dude.
People have been declaring Art's death since the decline of romanticism.

>>6961576
Because I'm a pleb. It seems...

>>6961221
The cold war, since then it's just money laundry or propaganda.

>>6961581
Nice subjective argument friendo

>>6961221
30/02/1992

>>6961221
Broadway. Killing theatre killed it all.

>>6961542
uhm well. It has a naked woman in it...

maybe >>6961539 is easier
This painting doesn't promote promiscuous and reckelss behavior? Does that work?

>>6961608
It isn't dubjective to say that there's no substance. You need to explain how why either substance doesn't matter or how it is substantive.

>>6961635
Uh, yeah it is? Because I find substance in it? Holy shit you pomo faggots think everything is subjective except your own opinions.

1917

>>6961645
>Because I find substance in it
No you don't. just admit it.

>>6961620

>>6961659
lol.

nice troll. had me going. in my defense, poe's law and all that

>>6961677
>poe's law and all that
I'm not trolling. But I know that you are completely unwilling to substantiate any of your claims.

It's infuriating trying to argue with someone who's only recourse as to why they are right is to say "it's becuase I am"

>>6961659
>>6961690
Not everyone was brainwashed as you.
Art (and beauty) touches humanity and this alone suffice.

You don't need justification to appreciate Michelangelo's La Pietà or Turner's Slave Ship. Although knowing the history of the piece enhances the experience.

However in order to understand the "beauty" of post modern works you need to look at the historic context or some obscure event in the author's life, in short, you need outside justification.

>>6961690
you're really trying to tell me I don't think that's a great painting, and that I'm brainwashing myself into liking it because something something post modernism something something inter-subjectival constructs

your arguments are drivel (naked women = smut!!!) hth

>>6961704
>You don't need justification to appreciate Michelangelo's La Pietà or Turner's Slave Ship.
That's completely untrue. Your understanding of these is all shaped by context, this is a very simple and basic point that is almost irrefutable.

I like Turner, but context is important to the way any individual views anything.

>"beauty"
I wouldn't even consider beauty a necessary goal of art.

when post-modernism spat on the sincerity and intensity of what had gone before and everything became a fucking joke

Impressionism tbh

>>6961713
No, I believe you like it but I take issue with you claiming that it is any better than>>6961256.

You may like it more but to assert "art is dead" because it doesn't conform to your narrow aesthetic tastes is completely insular.

1997

>>6961750
i quite like this

>>6961740
hahahaha oh my god

oh my god you really think the word anus x 4 is the same as that painting because no one's written a treatise about it

we've hit peak pomo

cap this guy's post for posterity

>>6961755
Look, i'm taking issue not with the fact that you dislike post modern art. I dislike it too.

I'm taking issue with your reasoning behind not liking it.

You dislike it because it isn't pretty.

I dislike it because it is, as I've said before, vapid.

You holding up something that is just pretty women staring at one another is not moving to me at all. It may have taken more "skill" to create but I'll take a rothko over an 18th century nymph painting any day because there is a way the Rothko can be contextualized so that it means something profound to me. There is very little that can be done to persuade me that paintings of pretty girls sitting around in bed sheets is any more interesting than the word anus 4 times.

>>6961785
pomo art can be more easily contextualized to one's own disposition and life experience, ok great

except when I see a painting that is both beautiful and means something to me beyond just being a pretty picture the emotional effect is 1000x that what I'd get from colored squares. are we done?

>>6961754
>i quote like this

>>6961221
Visual art? As Art Nouveau became Art Deco: which is to say, the World Wars finished destroying it. No innocence, no love of tradition, no leisure for beauty...

>>6961800
>both beautiful and means something to me beyond just being a pretty picture

So I'm going to refer you to what I said initially

>The art that says something, that relates to human experience will and has always existed and no matter how many prints of [shit] exist, that will not change the fact that relevant art exists.

You don't disagree with this statement, correct?

The sentiment of the post is, "Claiming that art is dead because meaningless art exists is stupid. meaningless art has always existed. It doesn't diminish meaningful art."

>>6961828
i have a knee-jerk hatred of anything with a whiff of pomo so i apologize

>>6961835
Postmodernism as a movement isn't necessarily bad. The problem is that the snake began to eat its own tail and there is nothing left but shock.

I understand that you dislike that method, and I do to but I think you may be incorrectly associating all things that are abstract with being part of the problem when the fact is that meaningful abstract art does exist.

The emphasis on visual art on this thread just proves this theory I have of /lit/

You don't think Literature can constitute Art.

>>6961851
idc that people are trying new things, it's the 21st century after all, but i just hate this dismissive attitude some people have towards anything profound or inspiring from the past

>>6961853
nah just harder to post examples of good literature without taking a passage out of context or w/e. literature and poetry are fuckin dope yo, same with music

>>6961853
Thank god you finally got that theory proved, you've been working on it for a while

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrvA3nv0Py4

>>6961866
>dismissive attitude some people have towards anything profound or inspiring from the past
I'm not dismissive of the art but rather the idea that the methods were inherently better than modern methods in some way.

>>6961277
this is a good post

>>6961221
art didn't die, playarts kai does molds on this level of quality for 10 bucks.

>>6961875
I really enjoy listening to Morton. Good video anon

ITT: Neanderthals who can only appreciate art which represent ideals.

Art can be better appreciated in 2015 than any other year in history. Its bigger than ever

>>6962257
expound on this further anon, I am curious why 2015 specifically?

>>6961221
>nice craftmanship but based on a total misunderstanding of greek sculptures

>>6961304
>>6961376
Fags, it's 2015 and the stale jokes about modernist, nonfigurative art is made of stale and anti-humor.

>>6962262
more content online compared to last year. You would probably never see HD paintings like this in your life just over 20 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolution.jpg

>>6962262
just think of Borges Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote for what I mean

>>6961853
>You don't think Literature can constitute Art.

Literature isn't Art.

It's Literature.

>>6962265
Nice
Meme
Bro

>>6962298
define art for me so we are on the same page

>>6962284
But does that make art any easier to appreciate? I mean sure we can look at high def pictures but that doesn't change current art appreciation. Are you saying it's easier to look back at what is already done?

>>6962294
Not sure i follow anon

This thread is atrocious, you people know nothing of art.

>>6962308

Objects that evoke an emotion simply by their sensation through simple sight, touch, taste, smell, sound, rather than through more complex forms of sensation (i.e. reading)

For example, text on a page can be art (Calligraphy) but that has more to do with what the words look like than what they actual mean. Even an illiterate can appreciate the beauty of calligraphy. However, text on a page that evokes emotion because of its meaning when read is not Art, it's Literature. It takes more than just existing as a conman man to appreciate Literature since literacy is a requirement.

>>6962317

Oh, we are not worthy of your attention, o wise one.

Modernity. The removal of Final Causation from philosophy.
Literally every other kind of answer is incorrect.

>>6961542

"Katy Perry" is a name that covertly encompasses lots of producers, editors, marketing agents and advertising. It is a brand for a product.
'Her' music being rendered 'good' is not only an artistic, but business effort. It is like McDonalds: lots say it's shit

Your "painting" there (ignoring the fact I'm seeing a digitized travesty of an image, like a ghost of some artifact — now that I think of it, what if a ghost is not a translation of an human being, but an amputated version of one? like: someone that haunts you is just yourself isolating that particular feeling or impression you got of someone, to the sense that (I'LL finish this thought somewhere else)), your painting there is an act of individual expression.

she's beautiful. but notice her body isn't quite in the shape of what constitutes 'hot' today. you cannot ignore the fact that we have basically distributed and shaped taste in mass form. it is not uncommon that people find the same girls to be hot, and the same ones to be cute, etc., just as it is not uncommon for women to conform, rather than invent, to certain standards of clothing and or attitude that they see somewhere else.

The producer, by producing a film, a tv show, an image, a song, a videoclip, is also in the production of a mass-distributed commodity that might end up redefining aesthetics... if you think about it, isn't a good theory, 'in the days of today', also a commodity? is it not it's usual value? a tool: determinism vs. indeterminism? compabiltilism a commody for undecidability, etc etc

discuss pls i just made this shit up, also this and shit are anagrams funny sith hits this shit

In the 20th century, when suddenly lots of poor people could make art comparable to people with rich patrons. At that point, realism and such became just one aesthetic among many.

This isn't to say that we don't have more art of a high quality than ever before, but rather to say that you can no longer get your dick sucked for painting pictures. Within this new context, only the arbitrary aesthetics of 'art critics' matter.

In other words, when humanity can have David on every street corner, it chooses instead abstract art, and to pay millions of dollars for literal feces.

>>6962352
That was fucking unbearable to read, but 4/10 for effort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Garfunkel
what are you talking about?
Art is still alive

>>6962385

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Farmer
The fuck are you on?
Art died years ago.

Art will die when humanity dies. Even if we use a term tied to the european tradition every single tribe in the world had their own version of the same connection with artifacts that goes beyond their superficiallevel.
I'd recommend Art as Game, Symbol and Celebration by Hans-Greogr Gadamer.

>>6962397
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Malik
no man
Art is still alive

>>6961221
it didn't

>>6961236
Lol

>>6961260
well said

>>6961304
yes far from dead. that is /thread

>>6961462
Lol

anyway. for my personal input, art is individual. do things you think other people will appreciate. that's all there is to it. explore your own mind, see what product results. make good shit. be original, like what you make. find things you like

that's all there is to art..............

>>6962418

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Tatum
Yeah, bro
Art died decades ago

>>6962403
But humanity dying is art, there will still be some big Other to appreciate it.

>>6962466
its happening all the time

>>6962342
that's a shit fucking definition
your mom is an artpiece going by it

>>6962514

Yes, and?

Just as some paintings are of higher quality than others, so are some people more beautiful than others. The best you might call Art, certainty.

What's the problem here?

>>6962514
please no more your mom jokes. lame

>>6962342

From a sensation you cannot derive the beauty of calligraphy. It does not lie merely in the senses.

>>6962531
>What's the problem here?
nobody refers to people as being art except in occasional forced analogies about new girlfriends in the mind of john green protagonists
generally artpieces are objects or actions or information(books, music etc) made by humans

>>6962620

Are you implying that:

1) Humans are not objects

and

2) Humans are not made by other humans

>>6961221
The French Revolution dealt art a mortal blow, to which it gradually succumbed over the following century.

With the downfall of the titled aristocracy and the Church as the centers of wealth and power in society, the main consumers of classical art were lost. In a market where artists are having to sell their works in galleries rather than work on commission, things like the grand masterpieces of the Renaissance just aren't financially viable. You can't spend months painting an enormous and meticulously detailed scene from history or scripture, then just hope somebody decides to eventually buy it.

>>6962640

Still waiting for a reply

>>6961221

The transition from modernism to post-modernism where the generation raised as modernism was in decline was educated primarily in modernism without understanding modernism is actually deeply dependent on an understanding of pre-modernism. There was a shift, because of this, from translation of the old forms and techniques into things that can cope adequately with modernity, into mere novelty, like >>6961256

Don't worry, figurative art is still alive on the internet and in video game promo posters

>>6962784


False. Even in a no-good county courthouse one can see romanesque columns, stained glass frescoes, and all the splendor of the newly romantic public largess.

>>6961221
When you tried to write your first short story, haha

>>6961236
Wrong
Art can and always will exist outside of this

>>6963802
Looks like shit tbh.

>>6963830
That's because it has nowhere else to go

I love art and artists
I hate art dealers, markets, galleries, and collectors
Curators are iffy

I love post-post-modern art, and I hate post-post-modern art.

>>6963834
Good point.

>>6963837
Also, while pre-modern art (to use a cringey umbrella term as cringey as "modern") wasn't a commodity in a capitalist sense, there was hardly any more integrity to art beyond the artist than there is now TBH

>>6963837
As do I. I love art and artists. I love what artists do to previously poor and blighted areas when they try to colonize different parts of a city. Specifically, I love the transformation areas like SoHo and Greenwich Village in NYC underwent when all those artists moved there. Coconut Grove in Miami had the same thing happen. Currently, areas like Wynwood (though that's becoming commercialized) and the Upper Eastside of Miami are experiencing that, and it's delightful.

Art has never been dead, I feel. It's simply been given less of a focus than other forms of media in recent years. On a local level, I take great issue with the trend-chasers and leeches that try to attach themselves to an artsy area whilst not participating in the arts scene at all and, chances are, not even contributing monetarily to any of the local craftsmen, restaurants, markets, and so on. This is how an area like the aforementioned in NYC or Coconut Grove are killed, and art dies... locally.

Most towns were never artistic to begin with, beyond craftsmen that have been made to feel obsolete because of the mass-produced flatpack IKEA bullshit that people flock to now.

>>6963837
you're also pretentious as fuck

>>6964055
why's that fam

Art as the narrative you're trying to think of started in the Renaissance and died either during the post-war or during the 60s, depending on the Death of Art theorist you're working with.

While Danto's death of art is better, I prefer Belting as an overall author.

I'm not even gonna read the thread, because the few posts I skimmed through show a complete misunderstanding of art, the art world and contemporary aesthetics

>>6961277
Care to expand on other periods of art? I think I enjoy your outlook.

>>6961539
How can you think art isn't a social construct, you fucking dolt

>>6961750
What, not only this is good, it was pretty much reactionary in 1997

>>6964059
idk, i just wanted to say that lol

>>6964087
could you recommend any contemporary art sites, news, works etc?

I browse Artsy and Artnet but I'm frustrated with all the price tags, collectors and gallery advertisements.

>>6961221
With the rise of mass culture, it's clear as day.

>>6961221
Ignoring the entire thread:
Right about the point when people became more interested in parts than the whole.
Joyce and his multiple dictionary fetish, cubists and their interest in paint texture and hue over shape.

If you want to make art again, study Racine and Ingres, particularly the latter's pencil sketches.

my diary tbh

>>6962342
Dude, this is really bad.

Theater isn't art then? Or Performance? Or video-art? Or digital art? Your definition works for a artifact, and even then, for some, since you can't fully appreciate Duchamp, Kosuth, N.E. Thing, Bochner or even Courbet, Millet or Repin without resorting to prior knowledge.

And I don't even want to get into your narrow views of beauty, emotion and art

>>6962352
Well, then explain to me how Japanese Woodcut (where Hokusai denotes the name of a whole atelier of painters, engravers, printers and preparators) is different from Katy Perry?

>>6962375
Realism wasn't a necessary factor for art since the 1900s, and was actually making a sort of comeback in the 60s

>>6962403
Really need to get my Gadamer straight, only of the major modern guys I haven't read yet, despite his importance for aesthetics

>>6963837
Curators and gallerists are pretty much artists, albeit a diferent kind of artist

>>6964167
Only foreign publications I follow are Artforum and been casually reading this http://www.spikeartmagazine.com/en#cool ,which's been really nice because they're less formal than Artforum, while not turning to Vice.

Speaking of Vice, I've recently took a interest in digital art and Motherboard / creators project has some nice stuff now and then.

As for authors, I'd recommend you Danto, Belting, Ranciére, Didi-Hubermann and Luc Ferry.

>>6964188
>mass culture

The fuck?

Doesn't culture by itself already imply that it's the product of a mass?

Can you have a one-man culture?

>>6961221
I never did. It grew, it multiplied.
You died. Or you were never alive

>>6964482
what kind of drugs do you like?

Art died on September 11, 2001

>>6964482
It*
Damnit. Brain frying here.

>>6964518
Caffeine.

>>6964596
You literally never talk about books.

Same time that God died.

>>6964619
Lit is a bad influence on me.

What have you been reading lately, anon?

I'm reading Hobsbawm's Age of Revolution –Along with a few others I'm in the middle of, a little before work and on my lunch.

>>6964644
I've been reading pic related. It's pretty good have you heard of it?

Nup

>>6964656
I have. I don't trust Sowell's opinions.
Harvey may just be my first official foray into the guy's writing. He's rather moderate I hear.

Also meandering through the memoirs of Aleksandr Herzen. Interesting writer.

>>6964518
>>6964482
>You will never trip acid with butterfly
why live?

>>6964709
I am acid

>>6961221

Decline in Christianity, uprising of Atheism.

Around WW1 ~ WW2
Hitler tried to warn you, but you wouldn't listen

>>6964727
ok kid

>>6964727
Your meme answer has already been given ITT.
It's not funny or accurate in any way.

Art flourished. Art adapted, after the invention of the camera. Art went up for sale to all sorts, so now it floods the markets with a dazzling array both great and bad. Just which is which has always been subjective.

What you want isn't even devotional art to dominate but for the past to literally return. I love to look at the past, but you want to shrink and crawl back into your mommy's lap. Go take a nap, anon. imagine it all away.

>>6961221
art died the night I savagely raped your mother, OP

>>6964727
Christposting and /pol/posting at the same time? Either this is b8 or you're the most autistic faggot on /lit/.

>>6964787
>/pol/posting doesn't include christposting

>>6964656
You are a very slow reader.

>>6961221
In 1962

Art has died every time some pretentious asshole thinks that X "used to be better".

>>6964768
Degenerate art (Entartete Kunst, in German) is a term used to describe pieces of art that are intended to perversion. Even Neanderthal cave paintings are far superior to degenerate art. While the origin of this term dates from the nineteenth century or even earlier, was popularized during the years of the Third Reich.

In 2005, ABCNews ran this test to bigwigs in the "art" industry to see if they could tell whether a piece was "modern art" or was just artwork by a toddler. The art bigwigs could not tell.[1] Even art by animals is of the same quality or superior to "modern art". In another instance, toddler Freddie Linsky in 2007 did ketchup paintings and fooled the art world into thinking a famous adult degenerate artist made them.[2]

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art

>>6964857
lol truth

>>6964866
>Degenerate art

So... Still art though, right?

I mean, you "art" right there in the term.

>>6964876

It's ironic
Oxymoron

>>6964915

Well, you know what they say about oxymoron's

>>6964703
>>6964656
You two are fucking idiots; if you want to know about Marx, read Marx. And If you don't already know, Harvey says on the first page of that book that his companion is worthless if you haven't already read each individual chapter of Capital before referring to the companion.

>>6964866
>art is devoid of context
>the complexity of the technique used when producing said art is the only way to measure it

>>6964866

>>6964866
Irrelevant and erroneous.

>>6964970
So not a good idea to read at the same time?

>>6964824
b8 posting isn't automatically autistic fagotry

>>6964866
>Cherrypicked photos on the left
>Idealized propaganda photos on the right

Ayy lmao

>>6961653
This is the correct answer

>>6964866
>metapedia

>this whole thread

>>6961221

Arte's not dead.

>>6964245

>Well, then explain to me how Japanese Woodcut (where Hokusai denotes the name of a whole atelier of painters, engravers, printers and preparators) is different from Katy Perry?

Common sense will tell you it's still different but you're right in observing that the west is tending eastern.

The audience lies mostly in the audience and speed of distribution

>>6966046

the difference lies mostly*

Every discussion about death of Art is born because some sorry people wants to glorify themselves trough the mourning of an end of something they consider as 'art'.

>>6961304
M8 ur missing the point

>>6961754
>>6961750
As do I

>>6962298
Wrong. If art as defined as an individual (or collective) expression of ones surroundings that evokes emotion from the viewer, Literature is most certainly art

>>6966561

But that's not what Art is defined as.

>>6961309

Underrated post because it hits the nail right on the head

>>6961221
Yesterday, visitation was awkward what with Marty showing up drunk.

All these ppl who hate modern art, this is so embarrassing. Only new money thinks art is "dead". Jesus

>>6964545
9/11 marked the end of modernism and brought in the era of postmodernism

When did the novel as Literature die?

>>6961309
This.

November 9, 2003

>>6967636
You rock. Love it.

Long established medium lik epainting were partly subverted by different strain of thoughts promoting the idea that esthetic value was no longer important.

I seriously think sculpture and the like have been considerably inferior in the last 100 years to muh movies.

>>6967542
Post-modernism has been the dominant cultural trend since at least WWI. At most, 9/11 prolonged it.

>>6967580

Right around the time that the bible started being widely available in vernacular languages.

>>6961542
it looks good to my eyeballs

>>6964866

someone actually reported that enlightening post that was relevant and on-topic simply because the politics weren't SJW approved

anyway OP, Art and literature died around WW1-WW2 around when Christianity fell apart

>>6969829
It was irrelevant and erroneous.
The whole thread's concept is bullshit. Art evolves, and now it is plentiful and and like a creeping vine it covers everything.

What you, OP and posts like Mr Goebbels' want is a return to an idealized past you constructed in their heads, which you miss so much they're blind to the lie they're living.

>>6961296
ma nigga

>>6964245
>Curators and gallerists are pretty much artists, albeit a diferent kind of artist
You mean rich bourgeois capitalists who literally leech off the real artists and speculate on the market to make money?


>Art industry today
>Not a place for rich folks to waste their surplus money

Photography killed art. For centuries artist tried to depict reality as perfect and realistic as possible. The goal was to illustrate real-life emotions and events as they truly occurred. This approach to the concept 'art' died out with the advent of photography, because it made this kind of art irrelevant and obsolete. It caused art to focus on the idea and message behind art as more relevant than it's visual representation. This is why pic related became a acceptable art-work, instead of a magnificently chiseled statue depicting a real-life Greek hero like Perseus.

>>6970088
>Photography killed art.
It did not. It did force it to rethink itself.
>For centuries artist tried to depict reality as perfect and realistic as possible.
Bull fucking shit. You know know nothing!

>>6970274

How about you actually refute the argument, instead of resorting to simplistic bullshit like saying 'you know nothing'.

>>6970309

dont expect to much from a tripfag

>>6970274
fuck off

When Christianity got it's claws on it.

>>6970365
why are you impersonating me?

are you so boring that you can't come up with your own identity and you have to steal someone else's?

>>6970367
Excuse me? I've been using this trip for about 2 weeks now? I'm quite the character on this board I'll have you know.

>>6970373
forgot trip -_- (seriously stop using my fucking trip kid)

>>6970373
you haven't though

> tripsfags fucking up a perfectly good thread

Seriously, get the fuck out

>>6970384
blame the guy who has nothing better to do than impersonate me in an attempt to sully my name

>>6970379
Don't fucking question me newtrip. Ask anybody who the main characters are on /lit/ and they'll tell ya straight away:

Butterfly - Quirky, but mysterious
Ryu - Eccentric, but with a keen tale to tell
Devvit !!IAN5a2RHlG3 - Rational and insightful, but with a witty sense of humor

>>6970388
Nobody cares fuck off, this isn't a trip thread

>>6970389
>Rational and insightful, but with a witty sense of humor
> talking about yourself

Holy fuck, you couldn't possibly be a more pretentious asshole

>>6970389
you probably weren't even around for the golden age of /lit/, 2011 where the trips ruled all

>>6970402
Aren't you going to post any art? Or atleast discuss the thread's topic?

>>6970414
nope. fuck you.

>>6970309
How about you take what I read of it and prove "for centuries artist tried to depict reality as perfect and realistic as possible."
It's wrong, and everyone who wants to talk about art should know this is wrong by now.

Refute my argument. This is just reactionary pining for the past. The theists pryers for a return to devotional arts dominance.

>>6970398
This isn't a lit thread, so beat it.

>>6961256

Tbh I can't tell if this is real or not without Google so might have a point

>>6961309
blech! @u

>>6961466
holy hell what is that from

pretty strange that the people saying art is dead are pinning it on an artistic event (such as the completion of a certain work) and not anything else

>>6970088
>For centuries artist tried to depict reality as perfect and realistic as possible.

some did, some didn't. romanticism started before photography, for example. many prints aren't realistic, many landscapes aren't realistic, mannerism isn't realistic, etc.

>The goal was to illustrate real-life emotions and events as they truly occurred.

no, only history painting was concerned with that and it's not about events 'as they truly occurred' but pinpointing the best moment to tell the story, or making a tableux out of figures. i doubt in these events people were all standing in readable lines, making expressions as found in artbooks

>It caused art to focus on the idea and message behind art as more relevant than it's visual representation.

that actually happened about 120 years after the invention of photography if you're refering to concept art (which exists outside of photography). duchamp is proto-conceptual as dada had nothing to do with 'concepts behind art'

>>6961539
you've gotta be kidding if you think that is at all comparable to 'a painting of nude females prancing' or w/e

>>6961542
>the 2 is literally a frog
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
totally a normie song btw

>>6961601
this is a really bad meme

>>6961653
this is terribly incorrect

>>6961653
dada tried to kill art but it really just revitalised it when it was carried away by surrealism. modernist projects aren't really all that successful

>>6970457
himekishi lilia

enjoy

>>6961539
>>6961256

i don't know what i hate more -- people acting like the 19th century was the height of painting or people who get upset when art refers to body parts/bodily functions they think is icky and pretend it represents all art of the past 150 years

>>6970510

>icky

>>6970402
>actually wanting a return to all the moralizing atheist attempts at wit
ISHYGDDT

>>6962640
Humans are objects, but humans are not made w/ the sole purpose of producing some aesthetic/emotional effect, usually, and if one were to try to, it'd be nigh impossible.

>>6964482
>>6964596
>>6964768
you have wonderful taste, by the way.
Would you recommend any books on art? I assume you've read some.

>>6961542
So why shouldn't we value beauty and merit? More specifically, why shouldn't we value the raw technical skills and knowledge needed to bring about beauty and prove merit?

I suppose you can say "the technical skills and theory can be taught to any sweatshop worker, and you can use the (concept art) skills to pump out mass produced commodities." But contemporary art doesn't seem to be any better. It's just a different target audience.

>>6964727
rather stupid/silly image

>>6970567
I have a small collection. Mostly Art Nouveau, Mucha, Klimt, some "comics", Little Nemo, Calvin and Hobbes, Edward Gorey.
I could fill a few rooms with bookshelves of things I want on all these topics I like.

>>6966046
Common sense mean absolutely nothing.
The anon you're replying asked for something that made them different, and I showed how your point was wrong.

Do you think baroque sculptors did their whole altars alone? Most of the job was done by workers / slaves / students, and they'd just add in the final details.

Case in point, the church this altar's in is two streets away from my house, and the guy who did it was a leper without a lot of his fingers by the point he did it

>>6967951
I seriously think any attempt to define modern-and-onwards sculpture is moot

>>6970063
You have never been to a huge bienal or documenta if you think curators aren't artists in their own right

You have never heard of people like Olafur Eliasson or Jeff Koons if you think your definitions of genius alone at the tower still work for the artist

You haven't studied art history if you think this is not the case ever since art as we understand it exists

>>6970088
This is extremely reductionist. Photography merely made painting self-aware, causing the possibility of art preoccupied with art's internal questions (such as your picture) posible.

If anything, the "death" of realism (death of the need to realism, tbh) actually strenghtened art

Also, if you look at paintings of the baroque, mannerism, romanticism or symbolism and think they have any need to perfection and realism, you're tripping, and know nothing of art history.

Realism is a drive for more (and I hate to use the term, but it's a easy one to convey what I mean) apollinean periods, but it's by no means the driving force behind the whole of western art

>>6970365
Art only exists because christianism let it's claws off of it, after working as it's incubator

>>6970581
I like you butterfly, honestly do, but that's tacky as fuck

>>6962403
>Art as Game, Symbol and Celebration by Hans-Greogr Gadamer

where do I get this without coughing up money?

>>6970581
Are these books of art? I said 'on.' But I like the recommendation of Art Nouveau, at least, which I will look into more.

>>6964727
Nice pic.

>>6964768
>Just which is which has always been subjective.
Autism, stop posting, tripfag.
Urge everyone who thinks "art installations" and the lazy blobs and squares deserve to be called art to forget about what's considered "art" today, think about that which used to be known as art, good art, and what didn't. Just because the equivalent of leftie "muh feels" is what prevails today in the art world and to retards doesn't mean that an objective view of art is impossible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGX0_0VL06U

>>6970604
Not butters, but I recommend you get The Story of Art by Gombrich, Likeness and Presence and The End of the History of Art?, both by Belting, The Transfiguration of the Common Place by Danto and maybe some Argan and Eco

>>6970606
You don't really know contemporary art, do you, a lot of it has hardly anything to do with politics.

>>6970606
Also, I'd love to listen to your ideas on what a objective view of art should be.

>>6970615
>contemporary
Contemporary art of various styles isn't what's mainly put in art galleries and revered as good art. That's mainly lazy modern art.

>>6970622
I'd say watch that video and the others of the presentation. I don't know how many shitty art threads I've seen over how many boards, but it's always the same dumb bullshit thrown around with "lol it's still art, subjective" and it's an empty fucking phrase.
Maybe this will sound familiar if you've ever been in an art gallery or art museum: If a "work of art" needs a plaque to explain why it's art and why it's "deep" it's shit and doesn't even deserve to be called art.
If the only way to call modern art good art or even art at all is to study said art by getting a shitty art degree then that person's view, opinion, criticism, whatever you want to call it, is bogus. And let's not forget the massive circlejerk this entails because if you dissent you're out. Why? Because you're effectively trying to take away their livelihood, they need their dumptrucks coming in every month with fresh shit to sell to keep their lifestyle and image of "art connoisseur" going.

>>6964087
How can art be good if you have to "learn" it and understand it? Sounds like brainwashing to me.

>>6961309
This opinion is only held if you skipped art class

>>6970659
This opinion is only held if you took art class.
Dumb fuck.

People like to do shit just because its different. We are becoming more liberal as a society because "conservative was the past, so we must change!", with liberalism, comes shit

>>6961221
nah

>>6961309

MY NIGGV HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>6961800
>>6961755
>hahahaha oh my god
>cap this guy's post for posterity
>>6961713
>>6961677
worst poster on /lit/ right now. just reading this made me angry knowing that people this stupid post on muh lit

>>6961309
>>6967515
>>6967590
stop

>>6964245

only good post itt

>>6964727

kill yourself you literal subhuman

Germany could've been the leading country in design & architecture if Hitler didn't threaten all the Bauhaus people out of Germany.

Klimt was the greatest Artist of the 20th century.

>>6970088

I hate people like you so much. You're so fucking full of shit.

>the most realistic painting is the pinnacle of art

just crawl down some hole and die

>>6970581

My girlfriends favorite artists are Mucha and Klimt. You two would get along well. Do you like Grass?

>>6970594

What are you favorite artists? I've been enjoying your posts.

I very much like Ernst and Franz Marc, but I also love "tacky shit" (..) like Klimt and Richter.

It died when the Americans mobilized against social realism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

This thread is atrocious, I'm always surprised at how ignorant /lit/ is concerning art, perhaps because that's my own field, which just makes me picture that /lit/ is ignorant about all the other stuff that I don't know enough to check.

200 posts in, there really isn't a place to begin with here.

>>6971004
lol that video is a meme to visual arts studenst, it's so cringeworthy

Please, start going to museums and galleries more often. A library wouldn't hurt either.

>>6971024
>lol that video is a meme to visual arts studenst, it's so cringeworthy
>Please, start going to museums and galleries more often. A library wouldn't hurt either.

Thanks for immediately proving the point of the video.

>>6970635
Contemporary art is what galleries sell.

Modern art is what museums sell.

To be honest, a lot of realist art needs explaining as well, you're just not given it because at this point, some of the symbols and themes are either so far removed or so ingrained in our culture you don't care, but when you take Las Meninas by Velasquez, Holbein's ambassadors or Goya's later paintings, there is a world of meaning there, but you're appreciating it for the pretty pictures.

As for the whole comercialization of art you seem so hellbent on denouncing, welp, art itself is a very bourgeois idea, it has been a sign of status since Renaissance at least (I'm not comfortable to comment on earlier or foreign art because I haven't studied it enough, tbh).

Art is subjective, though, albeit for different reasons all the time. Pic related was done by a brazilian hillbilly for fun, gifts to friends or his wife would put them in their garden, until a gallerist saw it, bought THE LOT for the equivalent of 300 USD or something close to that and begin selling it as art (I've seen sculptures of his being sold for R$15k, or 5k USD), and when people found out about him and went to buy cheaper, he got fed up, made him a sort of retirement plan and stopped selling altogether.

Then you have stuff like outsider art, in which literal exercises for the mentally ill are considered art, and the whole transfiguration of the common place, in which Danto puts out the (right, tbh) theory that art depends on the space it occupies in the world (which it did even before degenerate, dirty modernism, simply consider how DaVinci or Michelangelo treated their drawings and sketches)

>>6970654
Well, then I guess stuff like Finnegans Wake, Gravity Rainbow or Jude the Obscure can be completely disregarded, being art that need elucidation by third sources

>>6970933
thanks

>>6970972
Tbh I love german expressionsim / new objectivity and german dada, Weimar was a golden era for art.

I won't quite list artists, since it'll take a loooong time, but my favourite movements are romanticism, baroque / mannerism, german renaissance - specially the woodcuts and engravings, I'm a sucker for printmaking in general -, the pre-raphaelists general (it's ok to be tacky, lel) and french realism.

Now, I must clarify, when it comes to pre-modern art, I'm mostly talking about painting and printmaking, my knowledge of sculpture is pretty small and entry level (mostly because I suck at it).

I usually like modernism as a whole, but my main interests are in the late futurism, dada (specially german dada), expressionism, analytic cubism, revolution-era russian art as a whole, brazilian modernism (all of it but second wave modernism like neo-concretism specially), new objectivity, pop / nouveau-realisme / arte povera / COBRA (I'd add neo-concretism to the group too), fluxus and related artists, and selected post-modernist stuff, like conceptualism, vienna actionism and neo-expressionism.
cont.

>>6971041
cont.

As for contemporary people, I mostly follow brazilian artists (since it's way easier for me)

>>6971004
That video is indeed a meme, but >>6971024 is part of the problem with contemporary artists, precious shitheads who not only distance themselves from the general population, they also think it's the rest of the world's obligation to run behind them like they're a bunch of fucking torch-bearers of enlightenment or something.

I blame it on neo-liberalism and the failure of the modernist project, tbh

>>6971028
While that guy is a cunt, that video goes directly against a lot of what /lit/ (and anyone who thought more than 10 seconds on the matter) believes, though.

Go ahead and try giving The Odyssey or Ulysses or Don Quixote to a normie and see how quick they say it's hard / pretentious / whatever.

The thing about visual arts is that while the "simplicity" of pre-modern stuff seems like a given, it's actually not, but you have visual aid to think you actually understand what's going on there.

>>6971063
>but >>6971024 is part of the problem with contemporary artists, precious shitheads who not only distance themselves from the general population, they also think it's the rest of the world's obligation to run behind them like they're a bunch of fucking torch-bearers of enlightenment or something.
I'm not like that at all, bro :)

I'm pretty chill and I don't know how you think you know so much about me just because I don't want to post itt any further than this on the subject. You assume a position in me (that I don't have) precisely because /lit/ is thinking "this or that" still, when there is a much more complicated scenario here. As if the point here was to defend contemporary art or attack it. That's what's so wrong about this thread.

It's pretentious to spot pretentiousness like that, give it a break.

>>6971041

>Tbh I love german expressionsim / new objectivity and german dada, Weimar was a golden era for art.

German expressionism is probably my favorite period of art period ("audience laughter").

Not only the visual arts, but also film. Have you seen The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari? It's a masterpiece, perfect mix of surrealism and post-war expressionism.

>I usually like modernism as a whole, but my main interests are in the late futurism, dada (specially german dada), expressionism, analytic cubism, revolution-era russian art as a whole, brazilian modernism (all of it but second wave modernism like neo-concretism specially), new objectivity, pop / nouveau-realisme / arte povera / COBRA (I'd add neo-concretism to the group too), fluxus and related artists, and selected post-modernist stuff, like conceptualism, vienna actionism and neo-expressionism.
cont.

Outside of Grosz, Hausmann, maybe Heartfield (love him) and other related artists, I don't really know anything about Berlin's/Germany's Dada scene (if it wasn't obvious enough, I'm German). Can you hit me up with some names/some lit on the subject?

Art never died, it just became less relevant.

>>6971082
From what I remember (I don't have any of my books or the notebooks from when I was studying dada), there are Hannah Hoch, Ernst and Grosz (who were associated with many other groups, so their dada work tend to get sidelined), Kurt Schwitters (one of my favourite artists) and Baargeld, though they were all from different "groups" (they were mostly geographically divided though, there's Schwitters in Hannover and Hausman in Berlin, don't remember the rest of them though, only the Zurich Group, Ball, Tzara, Arp and etc.)

Also, I was thinking of artists who won't fit in any vanguard or group I can think of, and Joseph Cornell and Antoni Tápies came to mind, love them.

>>6971073
Sorry, you sounded sort of like the condescendent fuckwits I have to study with

>>6971103
Art is necessarily irrelevant.

In case you people don't know, this site is great. http://www.wikiart.org/

>>6971082
Also, yes, I do love expressionist cinema and music, and I guess I like Pina Bausch?, who seems to be a expressionist coreographer, even though I usually hate dance.

>>6971114
>Art is necessarily irrelevant.

It wasn't 2000 years ago in Ancient Greece. The tragedies and comedies they had, and all the architecture and such were the only things they had that could be called recreational.

Art in 2015 is irrelevant for the specific reason that technology has created other ways to entertain humans.

>>6971130
Then it wasn't art.

Honestly, while I did these huge posts explaining (or trying to) a lot of things, this is just art history 101, the sort of shit I can't actually bring myself to explain anyone anymore (even thought I did recommend a Hans Belting book about the subject earlier ITT, just look for it)

>>6964727
>Hitler
>not the literal cause for all this pc and mc bullshit we have today in the West

>>6971145
>Then it wasn't art.

Really? The Parthenon isn't architectural art? The paintings on pottery? The Illiad? The Odyssey?

Stop trolling. It was art, and it served a more relevant part of Ancient cultures than art does in 2015.

>>6961334
you are right, fuck this boad

>>6971152
I'm not trolling, it was only seen as art retroactively.

The very concept of art you're using to judge these works is a very recent, 500 year-ish idea, that most theorists seem to agree that no longe applies for the past 50 years, the use of the word being kept more for practical reasons than anything else.

Now, you might ascribe whatever meaning you want to art, but it's a purely subjective meaning, much like the one found in what you consider as "non-art".

As far the thinking and production of art goes, you're wrong, though, art has to be useless to be art.

>>6961221
wtf dude, he's still alive

>>6964545
I'm proud to be an american

>>6971174
>it was only seen as art retroactively.

No it wasn't you fool. Jesus Christ.

>>6964545
>eagel

>>6971213
Please, tell me which authors work with that idea so I can laugh at them.

I can tell you which ones I'm using so you can laugh at them, I'm mostly coming from Hans Belting, Arthur Danto, Giulio Carlo Argan, Mario Perniola and, to a lesser extent, Eco and Gadamer

>>6961221
Don't think it's dead, just buried under piles of bullshit.

>>6971235
I haven't heard of any of those people, but what I do know is that Nietzsche took the idea of the Greeks doing art because it was the only valuable metaphysical activity in life, from Sophocles.

So pls. The Greeks understood perfectly well that what they were doing where art.

>>6971244
Nietzsche was born after the idea of art existed, therefore, he's doing the same judgement as you.

It is art in the sense that it's doing something we consider art, but it can't be art since it had a purpose in society.

>>6970594

>Common sense mean absolutely nothing.

It certainly means something to me

And I did hint at the audience as a means of different

And Japanese art tends to focus a lot on the process and the making as opposed to the product. Whereas we value production, they valued, say, even the bonsai, as a way-of-life rather than something cool to display on your house

>>6971244
Also, the greeks understood that what they were doing was mimetic, but even the first caveman to draw on the walls knew that too.

But they didn't do it for it's own sake or for status or anything, they did it because it had to be done, it had a framework, a set of rules, etc.

>>6971254
Are you even listening to what I'm saying?

Sophocles knew that what he himself was doing was art.

>Nietzsche was born after the idea of art existed, therefore, he's doing the same judgement as you.

Just because the word art and the academic research of art doesn't exist, doesn't mean it's substance doesn't.

>>6971257
You still didn't adress my point about sculptors (or most art pre-XIX century, when the idea of the Solitary Genius really became one with the idea of The Artist)

>>6971263
>But they didn't do it for it's own sake or for status or anything, they did it because it had to be done, it had a framework, a set of rules, etc.

Depends on what artform you are talking about.

>>6971264
The problem is that you can't see how these things being mimetic / detached doesn't necessarily make them art. I don't know how easy it is to find that book in english, but I suggest you go read Mario Perniola - Ritual Thinking, it's mostly an analysis of the ideas of simulacra and representation during Rome, the counter-reformation and late-capitalism, and the gist of it, his conclusion, that while man knows he's indulging in a lie, he can do so with enough sincerity so that it can fulfill it's function.

The very fact that you can look at art and know it's a lie shows a inherent cynicism and detachment in the appreciation of art.

>>6971271
All of them. Notre Dame is only Notre Dame because it has the need to praise god, the Parthenon is the Parthenon because it needs to praise Athen, and etc.

>>6971282
>The very fact that you can look at art and know it's a lie shows a inherent cynicism and detachment in the appreciation of art.

I agree, which I said that art has become irrelevant, because we know it does not represent anything relevant, but to the Greeks and the Renaissance Man it did, because it represented something real to them, something tangible, which it is impossible for art to do legitimately in a hyper-technological 21st century capitalist economy, because if it tries to do that, it just turns into propaganda.

>>6971302
Renaissance art is precisely about something romanticized and intangible, be it the classical era, be it the perfect standard, it was more of a science of the impossible than art.

Same can be said about greek art, it was all about representing the impossible, the untangible, or, in the case of tragedies, the remote, heroic past, it was more ritual than art.

>>6971319
You're just deliberately trying to disagree with me now, so I'm done.

See you around.

>>6971339
I've always disagreed with you, tbh

Just, go and read some stuff on art history, I gave recommendations earlier itt

>>6971362
You're just a smug art student who thinks he knows everything just by listening to a 60 year old hippie professor.

It's boring.

>>6971302

you're just dumb, man. renaissance art is about being tangible? get real

>>6971372
It is about making concepts like religion being tangible for humans yes.

If not, why the fuck would the make a statue of Jesus or the Virgin Mary?

>>6971384

it's the complete opposite. religious art is about icons, about eternalizing values, virtues and faith.

"like religion being tangible for humans yes."

It was already a part of their life since birth, what definition of "tangible" are you working with?

Romanticist art was precisely about that which was unreachable. That is exactly what was symbolized when we refer to something like "The Blue Flower" or when you see a Caspar David Friedrich painting of someone staring into the distance.

Michaelangelo's David is about ideals, about a state practically unreachable to a human. Much like classicism artists were looking to create something that transcended the average human. Please explain to me how this is about making art "tangible.."

>>6971174
>that most theorists seem to agree that no longe applies for the past 50 years
intriguingly postmodern

>>6970606
those people don't look nervous

>>6970400
How can you still talk with that hook in your lip?

>>6961221
hey /humanities/, why don't you make a nice recommendation chart for shit to read on this? you can even put basic pointers on the chart, so even people like me will get it:

>art is about breaking the routine and general expectations
>photography made realism uninteresting af and shifted the importance of the visual to the concept, by the idea, so art is being consumed by philosophy
>contemp art wants the audience to step it up and do more thinking

instead of calling people plebs (wow so original way to break routine there), remind people that they can't just throw existing theory out the window. compare this to the word "irony" recently being bastardized in dictionaries just because people are too fucking stupid and lazy to look up the actual definition.

so, make a rec chart. who knows, maybe you can even add links to shit to read! see, if I can't find your fav philosopher on my slav library site in under 10 seconds I'm going to lose interest in the topic again. I end up reading jack shit and will just come back the next thread posting the same uninformed comments. how vexing that would be!

>>6970532
>usually

KEY WORD THERE

>>6973201
If there is a person out there who made a child w/ the sole purpose of inducing within another or within themselves a certain aesthetic/emotional effect (even if they simply wanted to experience the pains of childbirth for themselves), and not additionally to procreate, to produce offspring, I feel I should meet them for they are most definitely intriguing.

>>6970594
>I like you butterfly, honestly do, but that's tacky as fuck
What's tacky?

>>6970604
I like Art Nouveau, it's potential hadn't been fully explored, though I can see elements of it in Surrealism and now some Pop-surrealism

>>6970959
I don't smoke. May have to look into getting a chance to try some sometime, but, as a friend once said of me, I'm naturally chill.

>>6974672
>What's tacky?
Liking those old comics.

>>6974684
Calvin and Hobbes?
Edward Gorey?
"Tacky"!?

Such outrageous nonsense. I ought'a box your ears

>>6961245
underrated post

>>6972818
none of your green text is correct

>>6961221
The day after it was made. Art requires the assumption that your contemporaries are a bunch of unintelligent shitlords. That moves art forward.

>>6961277
Agree with you anon-kun.

Two hypothesis: either with Duchamp's Fountain or with the impressionists.
>>6961248
Top kek

>>6964199
this tbh

>>6974684
Or did you mean exclusively Little Nemo?

The art is great, the weird and archaic stories/gags are just interesting. Have you seen the animations on youtube?

>>6961221
like everything else, the baby boomers

now art isn't about aesthetics, it falls into one of two extremes- political statements that are edgy for the sake of being edgy or commercial ventures that seek to make as much profit as possible

we live in an era where smearing shit on the wall is equatable to michelangelo's sistine chapel ceiling, where a urinal is comparable to the Thinker, and where authors are being criticized simply for being white men

>>6974817
>I want to repeat myself forever and ever and never actually see these threads progress

see you in the next thread champ!

>your green text is wrong

which part?

"Gadamer's aesthetics is deeply respectful of art's ability to disrupt and challenge customary expectations. It attributes an ethical significance to art as being able to reveal the limitations of fixed cultural expectancy and to open the spectator towards the other and the different."

sure sounds like breaking routine and defying expectations to me. I'm only following the trail of breadcrumbs in the thread, of course!

would you say photography didn't shift the direction of art? not significantly? perhaps this is true - the notion was randomly blurted out somewhere in this thread. but are you sure art is not being consumed by philosophy? then why are these threads always about namedropping philosophers?

more importantly, even if contempt art somehow doesn't draw from philosophy, how exactly is the audience NOT invited to do more thinking when the art becomes increasingly abstract? I sure am extremely curious to hear you explain this one.

>>6961277
Fully retarded opinion
>What is street art?
>What is pop culture?
There are sidewalks filled with more talent and passion than whole museums