Can a work of art be evil? If so, what are the consequences of an evil work of art? How serious do you think an evil work of art could be?

File: 10 KB, 244x300, kerry james marshall 3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 12:20:37 2018 No.11728537 [Reply] [Original]

Can a work of art be evil? If so, what are the consequences of an evil work of art? How serious do you think an evil work of art could be?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 12:23:49 2018 No.11728555 Modern art is evil. Contemporary art is evil.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 12:24:50 2018 No.11728558 File: 8 KB, 111x177, 51Z9F9hX3yL._SY177_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11728537 >>11728537 Yes It depends on who reads it. Define serious.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 12:30:03 2018 No.11728580 >>11728558 What consequences would an evil work of art have on people and the world, etc.?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 12:32:03 2018 No.11728592 >>11728558 >>11728580 As in, how serious are the consequences?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 12:34:11 2018 No.11728600 >>11728555 I think that there is more good art and evil art now than their was in the past because of greater freedom from groupthink and tradition. In the past I think that there was more banal and slavish art.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 12:40:04 2018 No.11728621 >>11728537 It may be that all things are capable of some form of evil

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 12:50:58 2018 No.11728660
File: 21 KB, 308x308, kripke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

OP is trying to bait you into implying the existence of an objective ethical system whence your good-evil value judgment derives, at which point he will flatly reject said system, turn 360 degrees, and moonwalk away: le epic!!! troll

0/10 Your first mistake was assuming evil is a predicate

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:15:07 2018 No.11728777 >>11728660 You do not believe that torture is evil?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:16:08 2018 No.11728786 >>11728555 >>11728777 Patrick Bateman pointing at something

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:18:24 2018 No.11728801 >>11728777 not him but I believe torture is evil, objectively? no.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:20:00 2018 No.11728810 >>11728537 define evil

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:35:06 2018 No.11728890 >>11728801 I do not believe that I am in a position to say that torture is objectively evil or not, but I strongly believe that it is probably objectively evil. Do you think that anything is objective?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:35:47 2018 No.11728894 >>11728810 It already has a definition you fucking idiot

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:36:34 2018 No.11728900 >>11728537 Read "The Portrait" by Nicholai Gogol. It's the quintessential story about an evil painting imo.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:36:38 2018 No.11728901 >>11728801 The purpose of my example of torture is that it seems preposterous to me to believe that torture is not objectively evil

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:37:38 2018 No.11728910 >>11728900 Thank you very much

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:39:34 2018 No.11728920 >>11728810 How would you define evil? I think that it might be that which opposes creation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:43:37 2018 No.11728949 >>11728890 yes but we are referring to abstract concepts that don't actually exist outside of a conscious observer

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:44:59 2018 No.11728957 >>11728901 well, you lack imagination

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:48:47 2018 No.11728978 >>11728901 What if the man being tortured is holding information that would save thousands of lives?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:49:05 2018 No.11728979 File: 22 KB, 205x252, Lion-faced_deity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Most Christian texts are routes to Oblivion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:51:43 2018 No.11728992 >>11728979 I have suspected this before

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:53:03 2018 No.11729000 >>11728978 I believe that the torture in that case would still be evil but a lesser evil than allowing the loss of life

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:53:36 2018 No.11729003 >>11728537 No. "Art" and "evil" refer to separate, incompatible subjective value judgments.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:55:09 2018 No.11729011 >>11728949 why do you believe that these concepts don't exist outside of conscious observers?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 13:57:45 2018 No.11729025 >>11729003 Why are they incompatible? Why do you assume these things are subjective?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:02:55 2018 No.11729053 >>11729025 They are incompatible because art is intrinsically pleasurable and thus good for us. And I don't assume that. It's my conclusion after many years of observation, reading, and thought.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:08:48 2018 No.11729081 >>11729053 I shouldn't have used the word "assume." What do you think art does to an individual?

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:09:26 2018 No.11729084

>>11728894
that's arbitrary, and ignores the fact that there are multiple definitions used. I don't know what OP means when they use evil in this instance, I can only assume. but in order to best answer the question it's good to eliminate any misunderstanding, which is why I asked them to define evil. essentially what I'm saying by that is "tell me what you mean when you say evil in this instance".

at any rate, there's no need to be an asshole

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:09:54 2018 No.11729088 >>11729053 >They are incompatible because art is intrinsically pleasurable sounds like an opinion to me, dude

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:10:14 2018 No.11729092 >>11729011 what reason is there to believe otherwise?

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:17:17 2018 No.11729119

>>11728920
>I think that it might be that which opposes creation
creation of what? anything? is it only that which directly opposes creation, or does indirectly opposing creation qualify too? say if I were to poison someone's drink or something because I hate them, and they drink it and die. I'm not directly opposing creation, I would merely be opposing that person's existence. but indirectly you could argue I'm opposing creation it some ways, but as it stands I see that as a weak connection. though with that being said I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:18:35 2018 No.11729124 >>11729081 Art empowers because it affirms. >>11729088 What isn't an opinion?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:39:46 2018 No.11729236 >>11728555 Triggered incel Trumptard

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:41:16 2018 No.11729247 I think the Marquis de Sade's works reek of evil.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:41:46 2018 No.11729249 >>11729236 Coюз нepyшимый pecпyблик cвoбoдных

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:43:59 2018 No.11729265

>>11729053
what do you mean by 'art is intrinsically pleasurable' ? that it has the capacity to be found pleasurable? because, it should go without saying, that no work of 'art' is universally thought pleasurable - and when I say pleasurable, I mean enjoyable, agreeable in some aspect - to the individual.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:46:16 2018 No.11729275

>>11729265
>what do you mean by 'art is intrinsically pleasurable' ?
Phrased differently: if you don't derive any pleasure from it at all, you can't call it art, otherwise you're misusing the term. In which case, not all things that are pleasurable are art to us, but all things that are art to us must be pleasurable. And we would only apply the term evil to something that we derived pleasure from if our base instincts had gone awry in our development at some point and we suddenly had to build a falsehood like morality to protect ourselves from our our crippled selves.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 15:23:55 2018 No.11729479

>>11729275
>otherwise you're misusing the term.
and what is THE definition of the term then, exactly? and why do I have to accept it?

>but all things that are art to us must be pleasurable
so if I don't find the Mona Lisa pleasurable, I can't call it a work of art?

by the way, I know I may come off as passive-aggressive, but that's genuinely not my intention. I admit I very well could be wrong regarding this topic, I'm just trying my best to scope out the validity of your claims.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 16:53:07 2018 No.11729995 >>11729119 if it is the creation of anything that is good, then your killing of that man would be opposed to the principal that the creation of anything is good, and therefore your act of killing him would be evil

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 16:56:00 2018 No.11730012 >>11729124 Can you think of anything else that art might do to an individual other than affirmation? also it may be that some individuals have knowledge and not opinion, though they would never admit it

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 16:58:05 2018 No.11730019

>>11729995
so which is it, opposing the creation of something, or opposing the creation of something that's good? what do you mean by good?

I'm not sure that the example, at least directly, is the opposing of creation of anything good though, which is why I brought it up. do you think it is? how / why? do indirect examples count? yes or no?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 16:59:32 2018 No.11730026 >>11729092 i don't really have a belief one way or the other, more so i am wondering what the reasons are for your belief

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:00:01 2018 No.11730029 >>11729479 >it’s a thinly veiled Quinean attack on necessity I’ll have to summon Saul Kripke for this one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:01:26 2018 No.11730036 >>11730026 Calm down nigger Socrates. You obviously have an opinion, now let’s tease that out of you so we can expose you as ascetic and life-denying.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:03:07 2018 No.11730048 >>11730029 do you plan on actually addressing my questions though?

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:03:45 2018 No.11730052

>>11729479
>and what is THE definition of the term then, exactly?
The Greek etymology of the word is ἀρόω, to cultivate; and the Greek word τέχνη translates to art, craftsmanship, skill; by cross-examining the term's uses throughout history with its etymological root, "art is the exemplary human creation that produces pleasure" appears to be the most accurate definition.

>so if I don't find the Mona Lisa pleasurable, I can't call it a work of art?
Correct. You have no right to call it art then, and if you did call it art, you'd just be parroting what someone else thinks without really agreeing with what you're saying. You would have to first be mentored into having a taste for it. This is why we have classes for learning to appreciate (i.e. derive the full pleasure from) classic art, classical music, fine wine, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:03:49 2018 No.11730053 >>11730019 my wording was poor, i meant to say that: if creating anything is good, then you would be opposing the principle the creating anything is good, if you killed the man

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:08:59 2018 No.11730091

>>11730012
>Can you think of anything else that art might do to an individual other than affirmation?
No. If a different effect is produced on the individual, it is not art to that individual, but something else entirely.

>also it may be that some individuals have knowledge and not opinion
Knowledge is illusion.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:14:22 2018 No.11730118 [DELETED]

>>11730019
i do not think that your example is the opposing of the creation of anything good, but the opposing of a creation that you simply do not like, which means that you would reject the idea that any creation is good. if creation is inherently good, then only a creation which itself opposes creation could be bad.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:21:59 2018 No.11730145

>>11730052
> The Greek etymology of the word is ἀρόω, to cultivate; and the Greek word τέχνη translates to art, craftsmanship, skill; by cross-examining the term's uses throughout history with its etymological root, "art is the exemplary human creation that produces pleasure" appears to be the most accurate definition.
by what standard does this 'appear' to be the most accurate definition that isn't subjective? why is that definition THE definition? you gave a definition, you didn't justify why it should be the chief definition.

>Correct. You have no right to call it art then, and if you did call it art, you'd just be parroting what someone else thinks without really agreeing with what you're saying. You would have to first be mentored into having a taste for it.
no, not necessarily; it depends on what I define as art. taking out the 'that produces pleasure' part of your definition, I could successfully call the Mona Lisa art.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:27:16 2018 No.11730171 >>11730145 well yes that is how words work lol

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:28:38 2018 No.11730176

>>11730048
No, because your questions are deeply misguided and let’s not fool ourselves with this whole false exchange of information bullshit you’re actually expecting here. My reply hints at my understanding of analytic canon, especially those phil. language concerns which could really inform your inquiry. But I don’t have to turn that knowledge over to you. There’s not a single iota of wisdom or entertainment value or desire for actual thought that you’ve conveyed in this thread, so no. Go fuck yourself kiddo. Your questions are dumb and the prospect of calling up my six years of formal philosphical training to try tk explain the nuances of ethical, aesthetic, and ontological statements is way less appealing than making fun of your needy, cringey, borderline autistic ass.
there’s a well-defined value judgement for you bitch

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:30:44 2018 No.11730186 inb4 spelling or degree joke

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:31:58 2018 No.11730196 >>11730176 I am another person and I declare that you are an unwitting misologist and enemy of wisdom

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:33:34 2018 No.11730199
File: 9 KB, 182x278, g.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11728537
>Can a work of art be evil?

>"...he'd once painted an old Hueco's portrait an unwittingly chained the man to his own likeness. For he could not sleep for fear an enemy might take it and deface it and so like was the portrait that he would not suffer it creased nor anything to touch it and he made a journey across the desert with it to where he'd heard the judge was to be found and he begged his counsel as to how he might preserve the thing and the judge took him deep into the mountains and they buried the portrait in the floor of a cave where it lies yet for aught the judge knew.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:36:04 2018 No.11730209 >>11730199 cool passage, thanks

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:37:38 2018 No.11730216 File: 33 KB, 600x315, 05D67D48-2EE7-43E7-8F78-E6ABC67CE46E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11730196 Yes, yes I am.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:38:48 2018 No.11730223 >>11730145 That is the definition because it is the most informed and inclusive one right now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:39:19 2018 No.11730225 File: 157 KB, 960x592, fires_mccolgan_960.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11730216 repent, sinner, i say, repent

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:41:35 2018 No.11730230 >>11730199 What's evil about this? Maybe I just don't have enough context.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:43:14 2018 No.11730237 >>11730176 Wow, not only are you like super smart, but you're so mysterious too!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:46:08 2018 No.11730249 >>11730223 There's an interesting thing you can do where you put the word 'because' in the middle of a sentence, and, having done so, the latter half of your thought magically justifies the former.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:47:48 2018 No.11730259

>>11730230
The Judge enslaved this man and his legacy in a foreign object. One day the Indian will die and his bones will turn to dust, but the Judge will know where the painting is and will therefore still have power and ownership over the thing that no longer exists. The Judge even says earlier in the book that he draws things so that he can "expunge them from the memory of man".

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:49:08 2018 No.11730262 >>11730249 I don't see you providing a more inclusive definition.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:50:16 2018 No.11730267

>>11730237
nigger no one said anything about being smart. ive just read more philosophy than you. but no one comes to /lit/ to actually discuss philosophy. they come for the faggots like you who are easy to bait while vaguely expressing the kind of humor theyre left with after years of having no one to discuss this shit with.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:05:55 2018 No.11730342

>>11730171
>well yes that is how words work lol
in response to what are you saying that?

>>11730176
I'm not sure if you're who I was originally responding to, but if so, and you're being genuine, then sadly it seems like this is where our discussion ends. if you're being flippant, nice b8

>>11730223
most informed of what? why is inclusiveness important?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:10:49 2018 No.11730354 >>11728979 You Gnostics really gotta stop

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:11:00 2018 No.11730356 >>11730342 your bit about 'i can call it art if i define art in this way' i mean that is the entire discussion you and the other anon were having, about what the definition of art is lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:11:27 2018 No.11730359 >>11730342 >most informed of what? The history of the word and its meanings and variety of uses. >why is inclusiveness important? How else do you arrive at the definition of a word?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:18:32 2018 No.11730391 >>11730356 then I don't see the point of the comment. I concede what you're saying, but it doesn't seem like they do - that's the point. I'm trying to point out their misunderstanding of how words work.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:21:37 2018 No.11730402 >>11730391 it was just a dumb comment i made anon and yeah this is a very old debate isnt it. i remember coming across this ambiguity of words thing in Aquinas and was like, jesus we never get anywhere with this shit

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:21:52 2018 No.11730404

>>11730359
>The history of the word and its meanings and variety of uses
that's arbitrary, as the majority usage of a word doesn't mean that's the objective definition; those don't exist.

>How else do you arrive at the definition of a word
by what one means when they use it. that's how language at large works. that the most inclusive word is x doesn't mean y definition isn't any less valid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:22:50 2018 No.11730408 >>11728660 absolutely ebin

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:26:37 2018 No.11730423

>>11730402
that's my bad then, I originally took your comment as a vague rebuttal. but yeah you would think something fairly simple, as opposed to metaphysics or something, would be done with, but there always seems to be someone peddling the same trite "objective definition" stuff

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:29:41 2018 No.11730437

>>11730019
i meant to say: if it is good to create anything, not something specifically good. if we're using a definition of evil where evil is what opposes creation, then good could be what supports it

your opposition to that person's existence would at least contradict perfect goodness, if perfect goodness is the support of any creation. therefore i would argue that indirectly opposing creation by killing them would count as opposing creation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:29:45 2018 No.11730438 >>11730404 >that the most inclusive word is x doesn't mean y definition isn't any less valid. I meant to say 'that the most inclusive definition is x'

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:30:50 2018 No.11730441

>>11730391
>What is tragic?—On repeated occasions I have laid my finger on Aristotle's great misunderstanding in believing the tragic affects to be two depressive affects, terror and pity. If he were right, tragedy would be an art dangerous to life: one would have to warn against it as notorious and a public danger. Art, in other cases the great stimulant of life, an intoxication with life, a will to life, would here, in the service of a declining movement and as it were the handmaid of pessimism, become harmful to health (—for that one is "purged" of these affects through their arousal, as Aristotle seems to believe, is simply not true). Something that habitually arouses terror or pity disorganizes, weakens, discourages—and supposing Schopenhauer were right that one should learn resignation from tragedy (i.e., a gentle renunciation of happiness, hope, will to life), then this would be an art in which art denies itself. Tragedy would then signify a process of disintegration: the instinct for life destroying itself through the instinct for art. Christianity, nihilism, tragic art, physiological decadence—these would go hand in hand, come into predominance at the same time, assist one another forward(vorwärts)—downward(abwärts)—Tragedy would be a symptom of decline. One can refute this theory in the most cold-blooded way: namely, by measuring the effects of a tragic emotion with a dynanometer. And one would discover as a result what ultimately only the absolute mendaciousness of a systematizer could misunderstand—that tragedy is a tonic. If Schopenhauer did not want to grasp this, if he posited a general depression as the tragic condition, if he suggested to the Greeks (—who to his annoyance did not "resign themselves"—) that they had not attained the highest view of the world—that is parti pris, logic of a system, counterfeit of a systematizer: one of those dreadful counterfeits that ruined Schopenhauer's whole psychology, step by step (—arbitrarily and violently, he misunderstood genius, art itself, morality, pagan religion, beauty, knowledge, and more or less everything).

>We must appeal to the artists themselves. What does the tragic artist communicate of himself? Is it not precisely the state without fear in the face of the fearful and questionable that he is showing? This state itself is a great desideratum, whoever knows it, honors it with the greatest honors. He communicates it—must communicate it, provided he is an artist, a genius of communication. Courage and freedom of feeling before a powerful enemy, before a sublime calamity, before a problem that arouses dread—this triumphant state is what the tragic artist chooses, what he glorifies. Before tragedy, what is warlike in our soul celebrates its Saturnalia; whoever is used to suffering, whoever seeks out suffering, the heroic man praises his own being through tragedy—to him alone the tragedian presents this drink of sweetest cruelty.

From Nietzsche.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:34:07 2018 No.11730454

>>11730391
>>11730404
>I'm trying to point out their misunderstanding of how words work.
You aren't going to, because I am backed by a far greater thinker than myself, who I just posted these quotes from here >>11730441 to continue the discussion on. In his address of the matter of tragic art he went directly to the heart of the matter of art overall. The artist affirms, because creation is an affirming activity, and because art is affirmation, it is never decadent, and whoever sees an art as decadent is not seeing art at all but something else, most likely their own misunderstanding of it, like Aristotle.

>that's arbitrary
For you.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:36:26 2018 No.11730463

>>11730091
If you claim that knowledge is an illusion, then you imply that you know or believe that knowledge is an illusion. If you know that knowledge is an illusion, then you have knowledge and contradict yourself. If you only believe that knowledge is an illusion, then you have no way of knowing whether what you say is true or not.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:37:52 2018 No.11730471

>>11730437
>if it is good to create anything
is it? why or why not?
if we're using a definition of evil where evil is what opposes creation
why would we use that as the definition of evil?

>your opposition to that person's existence would at least contradict perfect goodness, if perfect goodness is the support of any creation.
are you saying perfect goodness is the support of any creation? what is perfect goodness? how is killing someone opposing the creation of things? like I said, in this instance, I'm directly only opposing this persons existence. indirectly though, sure you could make the argument, but then you could do that for many things, which would seem to render the definition weak

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:41:42 2018 No.11730486 >>11730463 "To know" is to simply feel confident in the utility of a particular illusion. The feeling doesn't prove whether it is true or not, though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:49:00 2018 No.11730525 >>11730486 That would not be knowing. You can reject that knowing is possible, but knowing something is true means knowing without question that something is true.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:51:40 2018 No.11730537

>>11730525
>That would not be knowing.
Well, that's my point. What I said is all that we're capable of and all that is ever really happening when we say "I know this"; true knowing isn't possible. Nietzsche sums it up well: "We have no organ for truth."

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:56:11 2018 No.11730550

>>11730454
>because I am backed by a far greater thinker than myself
appeal to authority
>we must appeal to the artists themselves
no we don't, Nietzsche is merely claiming we have to

>For you.
nope. a word isn't chiefly bound by a word due to some arbitrary phenomenon such as history. it's not some self-aware metaphysical force that looks at history as goes 'well, humans use this definition the most, so I will proceed to attach it to myself'.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:56:20 2018 No.11730551 >>11730537 You can only believe that true knowing is not possible, but you cannot know that it is impossible because that would be a contradiction

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:03:03 2018 No.11730580

>>11730550
>no we don't, Nietzsche is merely claiming we have to
Yes we do, you are merely claiming we don't have to (see what I did there?). In order to reach an accurate understanding of a thing you need context. The more context you have, the more accurate an understanding you will reach. If the artist only affirms (because creation is an affirming act), then the artist never deals with "evil" or "ugly" things, only good and beautiful things. If a work of art is evil or ugly to you, the artist has simply failed to communicate his art to you.

You are endlessly dismissing forms of context (history, convention, authority) which is precisely why you haven't provided a definition yourself. Without context you will never have a definition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:04:12 2018 No.11730586 >>11730551 >You can only believe that true knowing is not possible Yes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:07:18 2018 No.11730605 oh absolutely. I see most self help as being evil. Selling a feel good dream that anything is possible for a buck

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:08:11 2018 No.11730609 >>11730586 So why stop there instead of trying to figure it out?

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:10:19 2018 No.11730617

>>11730609
Because I did figure it out—for me. And when you "figure it out," whatever conclusion you reach, you will consider to be the ultimate conclusion only because it empowers you; your feeling that it is the ultimate conclusion will not prove anything. Nietzsche: "Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:19:42 2018 No.11730649 >>11730617 I see. I hope that this is not the case and that you and I will some day see ultimate objective truth.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:28:47 2018 No.11730688

>>11730580
>If the artist only affirms then the artist never deals with 'evil' or 'ugly' things, only good and beautiful things. If a work of art is evil or ugly to you, the artist has simply failed to communicate his art to you
if you exclude 'evil' and 'ugly' from what is considered art, then sure. but there doesn't seem to be any objective reason as to why one should think so.

>You are endlessly dismissing forms of context
I'm saying these don't make a words definition objective. you can define x as such based on something like history, sure, but that doesn't make it the 'right' definition in an objective premise, only a subjective one.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:34:18 2018 No.11730706

>>11730688
>but there doesn't seem to be any objective reason as to why one should think so.
Creation is an affirming act—that is the "objective reason."

>I'm saying these don't make a words definition objective.
Okay, but I don't consider pure objectivity to be possible in this universe anyway, since all subjects and objects are interdependent / relative to one another. In other words, I never posited it as the "right" definition, but rather as the one that is the MOST RIGHT. I even asked you to provide me a definition that is more right than it and you never did.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:41:43 2018 No.11730726

>>11730706
>Creation is an affirming act—that is the "objective reason."
what makes a creation good and / or beautiful, and how can something ugly or evil not be created (in the same way that something good or beautiful can be created)?

>Okay, but I don't consider pure objectivity to be possible in this universe anyway, since all subjects and objects are interdependent / relative to one another. In other words, I never posited it as the "right" definition, but rather as the one that is the MOST RIGHT
if it's relative there should be no reason to accept your definition; the 'most right' itself is useless

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:43:28 2018 No.11730736 File: 1008 KB, 2000x1606, modern art.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11728555 t. someone who has zero clue about art history

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:51:07 2018 No.11730758

>>11730726
Have you ever created something yourself before? Did you ever create something that you didn't intend to create, intentionally? No, since that is an incomprehensible situation. In other words, when you work towards creating something, you are simultaneously affirming whatever it is you create and deliberately giving it life, since you are deliberately selecting the elements of your creation—and you are intentionally bringing those things to life through your creation. This is a process of glorification; it doesn't make any sense to try and conceive the situation any other way—an artist does not spend his entire life learning to create something that he considers ugly and evil. The creation, to the artist, is always full of good and beautiful. If the creation appears ugly or evil to someone else, then what the artist is communicating in the work is not reaching that person; the person does not share that artist's values. If I explained further on this, I'd be repeating myself.

>if it's relative there should be no reason to accept your definition
If you see no reason to accept it, then don't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:58:22 2018 No.11730796 >>11730736 he probably means 20th century stuff exclusively

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:59:09 2018 No.11730801

>>11730758
>an artist does not spend his entire life learning to create something that he considered ugly and evil
this is unnecessarily specific, as creating something can happen regardless of the time spent working on one's craft. so lets take that comment without such specificity: (it would help knowing what you mean by 'ugly' and 'evil', but) theoretically it's entirely possible for one to create something they themselves think ugly / evil. I could this very second create something I think is ugly. attempting to communicate something ugly / evil follows in the same way.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 20:02:19 2018 No.11730814

>>11730801
>theoretically it's entirely possible for one to create something they themselves think ugly / evil.
It isn't. The person is not creating then; they are conducting a service for somebody else, perhaps. To create something you must give a part of yourself away towards your creation; it must be personal to you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 20:05:34 2018 No.11730835 >>11730814 how can something that's ugly or evil not be personal to someone? how can you not give a part of yourself away towards something you think ugly or evil?

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 20:10:10 2018 No.11730846

>>11730835
No artist deliberately chooses to represent merely ugly or evil things. Beksiński, for example, is not just depicting ugly or evil things; he is depicting them because he wishes to glorify the process of overcoming them; he revels in the ugly and the evil, but not because they are ugly and evil, but because he finds it empowering to challenge himself with them and overcome them. The same goes for all horror and tragic artists. No artist deliberately creates a tragedy, something that is so depressing it would kill them; the tragic artist seeks to incorporate dreadful things so as to be able to challenge himself with them, overcome them, and celebrate his empowered self through them.

I really am just repeating myself now though, because you aren't really paying attention to what I'm laying out for you. If you need more answers just re-read what I've already said or read Nietzsche more. I'm out of the thread now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 20:12:55 2018 No.11730857 >>11730846 I'm paying attention, I just don't agree with your conclusions. as I've said it is very well theoretically possible for someone to create something exclusively because it's ugly or evil. either way thanks for the convo.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 21:47:58 2018 No.11731210 File: 327 KB, 777x656, 12472482_1759290040971281_1620382343698562056_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11728555

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 23:27:10 2018 No.11731570 >>11728558 thumbnail-sized image uploads are evil

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 03:43:34 2018 No.11732282 It might sound corny but all the religious texts (some more than others) have caused innumerable evil acts.

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 04:43:25 2018 No.11732390

>You know, it takes profound art and profound insight into Nature to turn out stuff like Pickman’s. Any magazine-cover hack can splash paint around wildly and call it a nightmare or a Witches’ Sabbath or a portrait of the devil, but only a great painter can make such a thing really scare or ring true. That’s because only a real artist knows the actual anatomy of the terrible or the physiology of fear—the exact sort of lines and proportions that connect up with latent instincts or hereditary memories of fright, and the proper colour contrasts and lighting effects to stir the dormant sense of strangeness. I don’t have to tell you why a Fuseli really brings a shiver while a cheap ghost-story frontispiece merely makes us laugh. There’s something those fellows catch—beyond life—that they’re able to make us catch for a second. Doré had it. Sime has it. Angarola of Chicago has it. And Pickman had it as no man ever had it before or—I hope to heaven—ever will again.

From “Pickman’s Model” by Lovecraft, very short and worth the read.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 04:53:58 2018 No.11732410 The question of evil is always a question of for whom it is evil for.

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 04:58:05 2018 No.11732415
File: 618 KB, 600x461, 1524060043528_0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11730736
>Just splash a bunch of paint on there. Maybe make it vaguely look like something if you feel like it. Don't bother if you don't have the time though. Hmmm.. yeah, that's art!
A 10 year old could make better looking art

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:02:24 2018 No.11732422

>>11732410
Can it be said that evil and corruption are similar enough concepts in this context to be interchangable? If corruption is the concern, what were they corrupted from that was a more desirable alternative than the state influenced by the "evil" or "corrupting" art? Isnt teaching and corrupting the same actions with different held intent? Something that is corrupting has taught you a different way to be, essentially. A way to be that is so persuasive you cant help but fall in line with it the moment it falls on you ears.

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:03:21 2018 No.11732425
File: 120 KB, 800x1086, george orwell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11728537

Serious art can't exist under fascism aka evil. Ayn Rand and HP Lovecraft were assholes you can disagree with but made great art. Mein Kampf is a fucking terrible book artistically.

tl;dr if you made something evil, it's not art

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:07:05 2018 No.11732430 >>11732425 Anti-art is the only true evil qua art. Art that erodes art is less art than art that doesn't do this. i.e. one cannot make the claim to art then.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:07:06 2018 No.11732431 >>11728979 your god looks like an intestine makes sense since everything that comes out of it is shit

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:08:37 2018 No.11732433 >>11732430 But something that erodes art might do so artistically; a la duchamp and his toilet.

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:09:27 2018 No.11732435

>>11732422
Corrupted from some particular ideology to that of another wouldn't necessarily imply evil, but with the addendum that one ideal is more desirable, then the question is 'for whom is it more desirable for' and consequently it can be good for one and evil for another.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:10:50 2018 No.11732438 >>11732433 I would contend that it only erodes a contrived conception of art as epitomizing some particular ideal. It would be evil for that ideal of art, but not for art itself.

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:19:05 2018 No.11732453

>>11732435
It could be that falling in line with an ideology that you didnt personally cobble together is more evil and it could be maintained that the person who corrupted you with their view is the real evil in that whole scenario because they pulled you from your "original path" which represents your apsolute state as an individual untainted by the ideologies of others. Evil is a really personal concept.

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:26:24 2018 No.11732464

>>11732453
Ah, but we are always influenced by some thing or other. We have no 'original path' for all of language itself comes down to us from the culture and history that precedes us. All of our motivations have tinges of the past encoded in them. You may have a set of strong prejudices which serve you individually best and they may be torn asunder by another and replaced with different, less beneficial prejudices for you, but that doesn't change the originative nature of all of your conceptions as that belonging to a long history of ideas. In this sense it is a question; to what historical conception of reality itself is or is something not evil where a human being is merely a vessel of those intuitions?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:26:59 2018 No.11732466 obviously yes just look at this board

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:36:02 2018 No.11732480

>>11730052
Being 'exemplary' doesn't exclude anything else other than art from producing pleasure, meaning that pleasure-producing isn't a property solely belonging to art and thus cannot be used as its only definition. By its etymological root, without falling into etymological fallacy, it should be known that art has primarily been 'mimesis'. The mimesis produces the pleasure and is more intrinsic to the definition of art than its effect. The art is defined (as mimesis) before its functioning (as producing pleasure).

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:43:12 2018 No.11732494

>>11730223
Not necessarily. It does that trick where it either preempts counter examples by dismissing them as non-art or they enter into its folds by applying its quality to its opposite, e.g. "This work is art because I find its unpleasurableness as pleasurable." It is dishonest. The same thing is said of art being 'beauty' (an historically contingent definition too, but not a holistic one), arguments of the relation between beauty and the production of pleasure aside (they cannot be exchanged equally)

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:47:40 2018 No.11732506

>>11730580
If an artist can only borrow ideas, materials, etc., in what way can the artist be said to 'create'? Isn't the act of borrowing in this way actually a denial in the intervention of the artist?

>failed to communicate his art

This tends to be the case for all art. At some point art history for example would finally be 'complete'

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 05:50:04 2018 No.11732510 >>11732430 >Art that essentialises itself -as art- is less art than bloated aristocratic masturbation

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 10:45:42 2018 No.11733237 >>11729000 Doesn't evil mean immoral, and therefore wrong behaviour? Do you think torturing this man would be a wrong thing to do?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 11:47:18 2018 No.11733445 >>11732506 The artist doesn't only borrow though. The artist also arranges and represents new arrangements.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 11:52:04 2018 No.11733461 >>11732415 Fool!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 11:56:06 2018 No.11733472 File: 729 KB, 1600x1065, CFE9E266-0839-47B9-AC9F-845834C3735F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >proves that art can be evil

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:02:29 2018 No.11733491 >>11732415 Nice bait Anon! Try to make it less obvious next time though

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:04:11 2018 No.11733499 >>11728555 It's funny how an incel can say this IN A FUCKING ANIME MESSAGE BOARD FROM TAIWAN. SLIT YOUR FUCKING THROAT, HYPOCRITICAL KISSLESS MONGREL.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:04:58 2018 No.11733501 >>11732390 great passage

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:08:06 2018 No.11733510 >>11733499 Um excuse me this is a Botswanian model train forum

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:09:51 2018 No.11733514 >>11733472 this is awful and gross and overly sexual and probably misrepresents reality so arguably evil ya

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:11:17 2018 No.11733520 >>11733237 I think that it would be the correct thing to do because the good outweighs the bad

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:12:03 2018 No.11733524 >>11733514 Have you read the book?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:13:07 2018 No.11733528 >>11733524 Yes

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:18:05 2018 No.11733546 >>11728537 This thread reminds me I own a copy of Stephen King's Rage and when I came to find out it's been out of publication for a while because of controversy. Art can definitely inspire unhealthy individuals.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 13:10:08 2018 No.11733712 >>11729236 >t. jew

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 14:53:01 2018 No.11734158 >>11730354 Yes, that's the point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 16:29:07 2018 No.11734474 >>11733461 >>11733491 >Look at me Im so cultured xDDD The fact is most modern art is trash that requires no talent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 19:37:56 2018 No.11735330 >>11734474 You know and I both know it's cliché anon, but I'm afraid is the only valid question at this point: ...Then why don't you do it, faggot?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 20:16:28 2018 No.11735515 File: 579 KB, 801x1000, LEMLEM_RAW.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 22:22:01 2018 No.11736072 >>11728537 What about art that harms an unwilling person in its creation or consumption? e.g. torturing someone and recording their screams and putting it in a music album.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 22:50:32 2018 No.11736197 >>11736072 that would be evil, but i am more interested in something that is evil in itself, rather than because of circumstances around it. art that causes insanity or something is what i'm interested in

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 22:57:05 2018 No.11736224 >>11728537 >Birth of a Nation

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 23:04:08 2018 No.11736258 >>11733237 If evil means immoral then all art is intrinsically evil. To create something, you need to sacrifice something.

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 23:06:32 2018 No.11736268

>>11736197
Well then, in my opinion art is solely offering an idea, image, fantasy, or other such construct, and cannot be inherently evil. Any influence the art has on a person to do evil is the person's own fault for not researching or learning about what is in the art, or for not turning away when they recognize something that may be a bad influence on them. There is also something to be said of the concept that, as art merely presents ideas rather than necessarily truth, as long as art does not claim to present absolute empirical truth, it cannot be evil, and perhaps any "evil influence" an art has is good (even if it causes immediate destruction or death) because it releases bottled up evil impulses now rather than allowing them to churn and mutate in the psyche of an individual or society and become something even worse, or perhaps the destruction would not have become something worse but in a spiritual sense nature or vestiges of one's instinctual animal impulses has achieved something that is on its own terms "good" in this catharsis even if moralistically it would be considered "bad."

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 00:32:50 2018 No.11736574 False religious texts are evil and the consequence is eternal damnation

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 01:56:23 2018 No.11736845 >>11736574 >and the consequence is the belief in eternal damnation ftfy

Anonymous Wed Sep 5 02:22:44 2018 No.11736912

People say that evil is subjective but people are wrong. You can just sense a certain air about certain things. Akin to an aura. The kind that just seems foreboding. Like a spooky house with a keep off lawn sign or something. Some things are spooky in the way that a puddle is deep. Or unsettling in a way that sends a shiver down your spine. Some things are spooky like staring into a neverending abyss that consumes your entire field of vision. My point is evil is objective and it's absolute essence permeates everything around it, same with joy and nausea and discomfort and all that good shit. It's like we have a sixth or seventh sense or however many there are dont blame me I havent been keeping track that senses the general atmosphere of things.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 05:13:38 2018 No.11737304 >>11734474 What does art have to do with talent?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 05:14:40 2018 No.11737309 >>11736912 >People say that evil is subjective but people are wrong. You can just sense Sense is subjective, literally. A subject is required to 'sense'

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature