/lit/ - Literature

[op No.13456347]

Picasso was more of a poet than a painter.

His cubist paintings in particular should be thought of as literature, and not as visual art.

[Anonymous No.13456354]

no

[Anonymous No.13456363]

>>13456347
Firstly what is this painting? Secondly explain it in words (my first question and your claim which should be self evident).

[op No.13456375]

>>13456363
what do you mean by “what is this painting”?
what do you mean by “explain it in words”? How does one “explain” a work of art?
I’m not trying to be glib. I’d like to answer your questions, but I don’t know exactly what you mean.

>>13456354
why not?

[Anonymous No.13456400]

>>13456375
>what do you mean by “what is this painting”?
What is it, just explain.

>what do you mean by “explain it in words”? How does one “explain” a work of art?
What defines it as art?

>I’m not trying to be glib. I’d like to answer your questions, but I don’t know exactly what you mean.
It's okay anon not everyone's a genius it's just why would you suggest it belongs within the realm of the poet over the painter where in it is a painting and it was made by a painter? A broad emotional feeling?

[Anonymous No.13456402]

>>13456375
Man, I look into this board for one second, as a working abstract artist mind you, and I'm still amazed by how fucking pretentious you all are. There's no booby prize for thinkin' bout stuff before you die you know.

[Anonymous No.13456411]

>>13456402
>he has to get social recognition for the "intellectual" achievements of life to have any value to him

[op No.13456425]

>>13456363
>>13456375
Okay I think I misread.
My point is this: the definitions of “art” and “literature” are constantly changing. This is a good thing. When the definitions stay the same, they stagnate. This causes culture itself to stagnate. When culture stagnates, the way people communicate with each other loses its vitality and tenderness, and becomes war-like. It is not easy to understand each other as is, but when cultural forms (which may as well be considered a language) stagnate and become meaningless, it’s even harder to understand each other.
Poetry is not just “pretty words.” Poetry shapes the English language. It shapes how we communicate with each other.

One reason, though, why images aren’t considered “language” in the same way that words are is because they have hitherto been difficult do reproduce. With the advent of handheld image replicators and senders (smartphones), we can—for the first time in human history—use images as language in day-to-day communication. Look at Snapchat. Look at Instagram. If they are not forms of “image as language,” I don’t know what is.

[Anonymous No.13456436]

>>13456425
When's the last time the definition of literature changed?

[Anonymous No.13456442]

>>13456347
I love cubism but it's just modernism leading into pomo. Cubism is a celebration of positivism and the "inevitability " of science

[op No.13456445]

>>13456400
>What is it, just explain.
It is oil paint on canvas.

>What defines it as art?
I define it as art.

>It's okay anon not everyone's a genius it's just why would you suggest it belongs within the realm of the poet over the painter where in it is a painting and it was made by a painter? A broad emotional feeling?
I don’t see much of a difference between poetry and painting in the first place. Are Wlilliam Blake’s illuminates manuscripts poetry or visual art? If they’re both, that proves the categories aren’t mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.13456448]

>>13456375
>why not?

baseless

[op No.13456450]

>>13456436
It’s always changing. Look at Bob Dylan winning the novel prize for literature.

[op No.13456452]

>>13456448
I wasn’t asking a rhetorical question. It’s an honest question, and I want an answer for it.

[Anonymous No.13456453]

>>13456452
it's a baseless statement

[op No.13456464]

>>13456453
No it’s not. Are ee cummings’ poems not poems just because they have a visual aspect?

[Anonymous No.13456470]

Picasso was a hack, and Duchamp exposed cubism with >>13456464.

[Anonymous No.13456492]

>>13456425
>My point is this: the definitions of “art” and “literature” are constantly changing.
That does not mean there has not been a general social core to the definition of art, nor does it mean there does not exist an objective definition of art.

>This is a good thing. When the definitions stay the same, they stagnate.
This is the reactionary nature of humanity originating itself from the creative spirit of man. But you do understand that there must be a defining order throughout those many reactions in order for art to remain art? However your terminology used was also quite bad, definitions remaining the same does not cause stagnation, stagnation causes stagnation if you understand my point.

>the way people communicate with each other loses its vitality and tenderness
Ahh yes the age old nemesis of man named contraction.

>becomes war-like.
War itself is far too variable a thing to put in such a small box of reasoning's. And vice versa.

>it’s even harder to understand each other.
Poetry
You follow under the false presupposition that tradition is somehow innately bad. Tradition is what culture is built upon, what every newer edifice of truth and art lay its heavy shoulders on.

>Poetry is not just “pretty words.” Poetry shapes the English language. It shapes how we communicate with each other.
Of course however it is not alone the prime factor of influence upon linguistics and is normally greatly affected more so by the language than vice versa.

>|One reason, though, why images aren’t considered “language” in the same way that words are is because they have hitherto been difficult do reproduce.

Or perhaps they have been hitherto difficult to explain? Perhaps because the say symbol contains an array of knowledge beyond a single word and yet many at that.

>use images as language in day-to-day communication.
You are mixing up the two because they both express, you also mix up the two considering that emoji's are far more explainable than say hieroglyphs or this painting. They are simplified form and so becoming more language like and so losing the unique effect of image by sacrifice of emotional potency.


You didn't answer any of my questions anon.

[op No.13456494]

>>13456470
Why do you think Picasso was a hack? Give some evidence. For example, post one of his paintings that you think is over-praised and gives some specific reasoning on why you don’t like it.

[Anonymous No.13456502]

>>13456445
>It is oil paint on canvas.
So how's it any difference than a toddler knocking a cup of oil onto paper?

>I define it as art.
If it is totally and utterly subjective than it isn't art - for surely you understand the relation between art and mans collective.

>I don’t see much of a difference between poetry and painting in the first place.
One is language, one is of the visual plastic arts, one is of audio. Both pertaining unique emotional and rational quality's.

[Anonymous No.13456504]

>>13456492
This, I don't mind the discussion but at most art can precede parts of literature but literature has many more aspects than art, they aren't on the same tier level and they certainly aren't the same, even for a pure monist.

[Anonymous No.13456521]

>>13456504
Agreed, it's pretty self explanatory knowledge.

[Anonymous No.13456530]

>>13456492
>That does not mean there has not been a general social core to the definition of art, nor does it mean there does not exist an objective definition of art.
I never said there wasn't a "general social core to the definition of art."
What's the objective definition of art? Can you put it into words? Do you mean a literal definition like one in a dictionary, or a loose understanding of what art is? If it's a loose understanding, then let it be loose.

>there must be a defining order throughout those many reactions in order for art to remain art?
"Defining order"? Not all things need concrete definitions. God, for example.
My point, though, is that art needs to change. Wallace Stevens' "Notes Toward a Supreme Fiction": 1. it must be abstract, 2. it must change, 3. it must give pleasure.

>Ahh yes the age old nemesis of man named contraction.
what do you mean? vitality and tenderness can coexist.

>You follow under the false presupposition that tradition is somehow innately bad.
I don't think that. There's a long tradition of poetry and visual art coexisting going all the way back to medieval illuminated manuscripts continuing all the way up to comic books and graphic novels. It's all a continuous tradition.

>Or perhaps they have been hitherto difficult to explain?
The point of paintings are not to be explain. The point of paintings are to explain.

>You didn't answer any of my questions anon.
I tried. Be more specific in your questions if you want more specific answers.

[op No.13456534]

>>13456504
literature is a subset of art. they aren't separate spheres.

[op No.13456548]

>>13456530
in fact, I'd say that vitality and tenderness are very similar. the opposite of vitality/tenderness is a sort of bureaucratic mechanistic apathetic ennui.

[Anonymous No.13456560]

>>13456530
>I never said there wasn't a "general social core to the definition of art."
Then why argue definitions are constantly changing, what was the purpose of stating that?

>What's the objective definition of art?
I shall say and when I do say this mull over it before you release your rabbid anger from misunderstanding - Art is that of the self contained beauty appreciated.

>"Defining order"? Not all things need concrete definitions. God, for example.
The very fact that you can use the word God concisely is testimony that there exists a defining order of what "God" is.

>1. it must be abstract, 2. it must change, 3. it must give pleasure.

What a fucking pseud, I agree art must continue to change to some degree however explain why it must be abstract, and define pleasure.

>what do you mean? vitality and tenderness can coexist.
As in linguistic contraction - the degeneration of languages as why modern Greece is far different and shittier than ancient Greece.

>I don't think that. There's a long tradition of poetry and visual art coexisting going all the way back to medieval illuminated manuscripts continuing all the way up to comic books and graphic novels. It's all a continuous tradition.

But you must understand, new does not necessarily mean good or art for that matter. No matter how many people claim a pile of shit is art it will never be so.

>The point of paintings are not to be explain. The point of paintings are to explain.

Stop being a pseud, you know this wasn't what I was saying but funnily enough is what modern art struggles with - explaining. Expressing.

>I tried. Be more specific in your questions if you want more specific answers.
You dodge points anon, however currently I just want you to answer these.

[op No.13456636]

>>13456560
>You dodge points anon, however currently I just want you to answer these.
Okay, I'll answer every single question you posed.

>Then why argue definitions are constantly changing, what was the purpose of stating that?
Definitions needn't always be codified. Although codification sets a precedent for general understanding, it also limits and constricts. There must be a balance of definition and vagueness, certainty and uncertainty, rationality and irrationality.

I'll answer any question you ask, but they have to be questions.

[op No.13456648]

>>13456636
actually I have a better answer for that quesiton

>Then why argue definitions are constantly changing, what was the purpose of stating that?
I never said there wasn't a "general social core to the definition of art," but I also never said there was. I don't think art is about definitions.

[Anonymous No.13456686]

>>13456464
fallacious reasoning. a 'visual aspect' doesn't qualify something as visual art.

[Anonymous No.13456691]

>>13456534
You're a moron and the thread is dead

[op No.13456701]

>>13456686
what qualifies something as visual art?

>>13456691
>the thread is dead
self-contradiction

[Anonymous No.13456702]

>>13456636
>Definitions needn't always be codified. Although codification sets a precedent for general understanding, it also limits and constricts. There must be a balance of definition and vagueness, certainty and uncertainty, rationality and irrationality.

Incorrect, you do seem to have a vague understanding of duality's relationship to art which may help you. Could you supply an example of a definition holding back an artistic movement? Definitions aren't what hold people down it's how people treat definitions which can be helped.

>>13456648
>I never said there wasn't a "general social core to the definition of art," but I also never said there was. I don't think art is about definitions.

That's like saying "I don't think grass is about definitions" as with any word placement in that sentence. The only response is "ok, what's your point, I'm only arguing grass is green and thin and a particular type of plant".

My questions is one of supplementation, do you believe a more complex form is capable of yielding more advanced emotional expression than say the simplistic abstract expressions - compare the Pre Raphaelite's to said movement.

[Anonymous No.13456708]

>>13456701
>what qualifies something as visual art?

if it follows the tradition of representative image-making generally understood to date back to cave paintings

i'm not sure what you're doing here -- are you just here to keep asking 'but why?' without doing any research beforehand?

[Anonymous No.13456709]

>>13456701
You're re-tar-ded

[op No.13456726]

>>13456702
>Could you supply an example of a definition holding back an artistic movement?
sure. poetry and visual art are the same thing, but definitions make people view them as distinct spheres. Thus, poetry and visual art are both generally going through rough spots right now because they won't sleep with each other. They could have a beautiful baby together if they wanted to.
Just like how poetry and music had a beautiful baby in the late 1960s.

>do you believe a more complex form is capable of yielding more advanced emotional expression than say the simplistic abstract expressions - compare the Pre Raphaelite's to said movement.
I'd love to answer this question, but I don't understand the binary you're setting up between "a more complex form" and "the simplistic abstract expressions." Abstract expressions can be complex, no?

>>13456708
>i'm not sure what you're doing here -- are you just here to keep asking 'but why?' without doing any research beforehand?
Because I like conversation and I like hearing what people think.

>>13456709
pic related

[Anonymous No.13456773]

>>13456726
>sure. poetry and visual art are the same thing
Poetry is based in literature and language. Visual art on the plastic. Both the plastic and audio based arts have unique emotional effects pertaining to themselves as well as unique possibility's.

>but definitions make people view them as distinct spheres.
I think you are just identifying how art overlaps (because of the defining order of what art is) not that literature is the same as a painting. There are no words to read allowed in a painting, there are no rhymes, wit, or character of writing - it relies on colour, shape, etc.

>because they won't sleep with each other.
The consummation of a man and a woman is a different thing between a hermaphrodite. I think you would like Richard Wagner, he is the greatest artistic genius to ever of lived and he himself had aimed to unite the arts - poetry, plastic, drama, music, etc. Though his immense genius cannot be explained in one or even a few threads so this shall have to suffice. Just remember, if poetry was the same as painting they wouldn't use different artistic techniques and effects and so would be impossible to separate.

Also anon you don't think comic books are art do you? And are you thinking of Don Mclean when you mention the 60's? Like it's a mass degeneration from the pre-modern music but it's still top notch for the folk song and in comparison to its progeny.

.I'd love to answer this question, but I don't understand the binary you're setting up between "a more complex form" and "the simplistic abstract expressions." Abstract expressions can be complex, no?

I think you misunderstand, what is more complex the archetype of say the knight as in my image, or more broken down base shapes so triangles or lines thrown together (with order in mind or not). Hence modern art is generally less advanced though of course not always it's just I have found primmest factor of what defines modern art is the destruction and disintegration of man.

[Anonymous No.13456775]

>>13456726
>>13456773
>forgot pic

Also anon I'm sorry I cannot explain colour's role in the modern plastic arts but I'm writing an essay on it and just this one peace of knowledge would branch out the rest of my theory.

[Anonymous No.13456802]

>>13456726
You are low IQ, you are esl, you have never read philosophy, your theory is hser smoking weed tier retarded

[Anonymous No.13456835]

>>13456775

[op No.13456860]

>>13456802
luv u 2 babe

>>13456773
>Also anon you don't think comic books are art do you?
Chris Ware
Art Spiegelman
R. Crumb
Daniel Clowes
Charles Burns

>And are you thinking of Don Mclean when you mention the 60's?
Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Lou Reed, Syd Barrett, Jim Morrison, and Paul Simon were all making great work around the late 60s and early 70s.

>what is more complex the archetype of say the knight as in my image, or more broken down base shapes so triangles or lines thrown together
it's hard to say which is more complex than the other when I don't know exactly what you mean by "complex."
Isn't >>13456835 just "base shapes so triangles or lines thrown together (with order in mind or not)"?
>>13456835
The basic compositional structure is literally just a triangle, so I'm not exactly sure what your argument is.

[Anonymous No.13456873]

>>13456450
What a joke.

[Anonymous No.13456886]

>>13456450
the nobel shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. by sheer luck, they have awarded two worthwhile authors in the past 50 years.

[op No.13456888]

>>13456873
What’s wrong with jokes? I like them. They’re funny.

[Anonymous No.13456895]

>>13456450
The world turns, yes, but certain qualities of things endure beyond faddish changes

[Anonymous No.13456899]

>>13456860
Ytf are you in lit? You're a moron, if you're claiming anything art is literature (which says it's not hierarchical you God damned moron, you can't take what ppl criticize you on and pretend it's your idea, you never mentioned hierarchy), then you're stuck defending marble statues as literature. You're a fucking moron and you would be well served to read any philosophy to get your head out of your ass. You're an 18 yo moron

[op No.13456903]

>>13456886
Come gather 'round, people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin'
And you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
The battle outside ragin'
Will soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'

[Anonymous No.13456905]

>>13456888
Checked and you're right. I should be more detached.

[op No.13456916]

>>13456895
I agree

>>13456899
>Ytf are you in lit?
because it's fun

>You're a moron, if you're claiming anything art is literature
I'm not and I never did

>then you're stuck defending marble statues as literature
I'm not and I never did

>You're an 18 yo moron
I'm not but I was

[Anonymous No.13456924]

>>13456903
this reads like a nursery rhyme. imagine if the sweeds gave it to judy blume next, that'll about complete the picture

[Anonymous No.13456928]

>>13456916
Gee wat do we have here pseud, is the high from your own farts almost done?

[Anonymous No.13456929]

>>13456860
>Chris Ware
>Art Spiegelman
>R. Crumb
>Daniel Clowes
>Charles Burns
Some of them may look nice but it isn't art anon.

>Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Lou Reed, Syd Barrett, Jim Morrison, and Paul Simon were all making great work around the late 60s and early 70s.

Yes I generally agree with this.

>it's hard to say which is more complex than the other when I don't know exactly what you mean by "complex."

Anon don't play coy, you know what complex means.

>Isn't >>13456835 (You) just "base shapes so triangles or lines thrown together (with order in mind or not)"?

Let me retract the "order in mind or not" as that was intended to convey whether or not picasso put a triangle somewhere randomly for a "reason" or not doesn't matter. When you understand my point now that image is undoubtedly more complex. However my image also uses a vast array of colours and shape to amazingly smaller effect than a picasso painting. Zooming in on one tiny portion of this painting would make it a modern art masterpiece. The pre-modern painting is undoubtedly more complex now would you suggest it is able to express higher emotions not just with its higher complexity regardless of order but also because of the order instilled to represent certain archetypal images - collective emotive's of man that advance to the extreme beyond the base emotive nature of only colour or base shapes alone. For example what expresses more - a black triangle triangle which brings to mind a sense of extremely base "Wariness" and "unease" because of the points or say a black knight dressed as a skeleton.

>The basic compositional structure is literally just a triangle, so I'm not exactly sure what your argument is.

Anon you do understand how collective's work right?

[Anonymous No.13456942]

>>13456701
Poetry relies on the semantic meaning of the words. The visual arrangement of the words are supplementary, embellishment.

Whereas in visual arts nearly all meaning is inferred visually, although a few words can be chosen in the title to provide some framing

Painting is poetry unconstrained by the specificity of language, but constrained by appearances. Picasso's deconstruction of the appearances of his subjects I could see as being somewhat poetic. The choice of what elements to surface, and the manner in which they are portrayed is a bit like choice of words in a poem. But I wouldn't say he's "more poet than painter", when he's still working with the language of sight, which at some level can bypass reason on its path to emotion and understanding in a way that words can't

[Anonymous No.13456945]

>>13456425
> With the advent of handheld image replicators and senders (smartphones), we can—for the first time in human history—use images as language in day-to-day communication. Look at Snapchat. Look at Instagram. If they are not forms of “image as language,” I don’t know what is.

You know what, I like this point OP. Interesting thought.

However it has fuck all to do with Cubism or Picasso.

[Anonymous No.13456957]

>>13456945
>use images as language in day to day communication
Sure that mens restroom sign sure gives me a lot of meaning in life but you know what would really do the job a big abstract cubism of a cock being overlaid with 12 other cocks entering hyperrealist dimensions, preferably overladen with a McDonald's sign so I can remember I still live in a capitalist economy. Whether I ever actually figure out I'm entering a restroom is ofc besides the point because in this fart sniffers world everything is a restroom

[Anonymous No.13456962]

Can we all agree that his blue period was the best?

[Anonymous No.13456966]

>>13456945
>smartphones
Imageboards, please.

[op No.13456994]

>>13456928
nah, the high's still going strong

>>13456929
>Some of them may look nice but it isn't art anon.
what's your definition of art?

>Anon don't play coy, you know what complex means
I think I do, but since this conversation is getting so bogged down in definitions, I want to make sure I understand exactly what you mean

>>13456929
my image also uses a vast array of colours and shape to amazingly smaller effect than a picasso painting
I wouldn't say there's such a vast array of colors. technically speaking, its palate is pretty restrained. it's mostly just reds and grey.
as far as shape goes, are you implying that the more intricate an image is, the better it is? then pic related should astound you

>For example what expresses more - a black triangle triangle which brings to mind a sense of extremely base "Wariness" and "unease" because of the points or say a black knight dressed as a skeleton.
neither expresses "more" than the other. a black triangle expresses a black triangle. a black knight dressed as a skeleton expresses a black knight dressed as a skeleton.

>The pre-modern painting is undoubtedly more complex now would you suggest it is able to express higher emotions not just with its higher complexity regardless of order but also because of the order instilled to represent certain archetypal images - collective emotive's of man that advance to the extreme beyond the base emotive nature of only colour or base shapes alone
you seem to suggest that there's a definitive difference between what's being represented and how it's being represented. what makes you believe that?

>>13456962
it all comes down to taste. his rose period, for example, may not be his "Greatest," but it has a special place in my heart

[Anonymous No.13456995]

>>13456962
He's one of the very painters that pulled off these memes styles and he did so many different ones.

[op No.13457001]

>>13456994
oh shit. I meant to use this as pic related when I said
>then pic related should astound you

[Anonymous No.13457010]

>>13456962
Demoiselles is the best because it showed you have to be an asshole to be a successful modern artist

[Anonymous No.13457015]

>>13456994
What do you mean what do you mean tho anon?
>jerk me off next anon

[Anonymous No.13457016]

>>13457001
This is a Jackson Pollock painting

[op No.13457029]

btw y'all can call me a pseud all you want, but I don't claim to be an intellectual in any way. I'm an artist first and foremost.

>>13456995
that's why I love him! he was so inventive

to quote pic related:
>You were not always sure, not always set
>To hiding night or tuning "symphonies";
>Had not one style from birth, but tried and pried
>And stretched and tampered with the media.

>>13457016
yeah. so?
I was trying to point out that intricacy of form does not equal quality.
that being said, I personally love pollock's work

>>13457015
sure, what's your address? I've got my hand lubed up and ready.

[Anonymous No.13457052]

>>13457029
Are you cute art hoe retard?

[op No.13457088]

>>13457052

[Anonymous No.13457093]

>>13457029
Im rather surprised that Ezra Pound is a fan of Lincoln

[Anonymous No.13457130]

>>13456425
>One reason, though, why images aren’t considered “language” in the same way that words are is because they have hitherto been difficult do reproduce.
You're talking about memes. Stringing emojis together is more poetry than visual art. Making a painting is more visual art than poetry.

[Anonymous No.13457213]

>>13457088
Keep your ugliness to yourself

[op No.13457233]

>>13457213

[Anonymous No.13457249]

>>13456994
>what's your definition of art?
Self contained beauty appreciated.

>I think I do, but since this conversation is getting so bogged down in definitions, I want to make sure I understand exactly what you mean

Just as larger means larger than something.

>my image also uses a vast array of colours and shape to amazingly smaller effect than a picasso painting
I wouldn't say there's such a vast array of colors. technically speaking, its palate is pretty restrained. it's mostly just reds and grey.
as far as shape goes, are you implying that the more intricate an image is, the better it is? then pic related should astound you

Ahhhhh anon, no I was stating that the simplistic image archetypally and within the detail will be shitter than the more complex of those sorts.

>neither expresses "more" than the other. a black triangle expresses a black triangle. a black knight dressed as a skeleton expresses a black knight dressed as a skeleton.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Anon do you not believe beauty exists? Do you not believe the large exists? Do you not believe the unique exists? Seriously read fucking Plato at least man. For example colours have certain emotional effects on ourselves, shape has certain emotional effects on ourselves. Same thing with musical notes and chords. Now when you add them together in some level of order and greater level of aesthetic. You keep doing that and you have someone like Wagner. Now view the larger image (whether musical or in painting) as the collective whole of these smaller parts and now these larger image acts as these same smaller emotive's only to a much larger and further extent - these are called archetypes. If art doesn't bring forth emotion or represent anything than it isn't art anon.

>you seem to suggest that there's a definitive difference between what's being represented and how it's being represented. what makes you believe that?

Because you can generally have the ability to represent a certain effect given higher or lower levels of advancements this itself altering the emotional effect.


Now anon please, I shouldn't have to explain basic things to you such as emotive expression. It's not even art theory but please it just drags a conversation out into a lecture.

[op No.13457362]

>>13457249
>Ahhhhh anon, no I was stating that the simplistic image archetypally and within the detail will be shitter than the more complex of those sorts.
okay. by this logic >>13457001 is better than >>13456835 because it is more complex

>Anon do you not believe beauty exists?
I believe that beauty is the only thing that exists

>Seriously read fucking Plato at least man.
I've read Plato.

>It's not even art theory but please it just drags a conversation out into a lecture.
I'd love for you to lecture me. I'm just trying to learn about art, so I appreciate you telling me about it.
The only thing I ask of you is that you use simpler terms than "higher or lower levels of advancements" and shit


also, I encourage you to post more paintings that you like. I'd love to see more of what your taste is

[Anonymous No.13457379]

>>13457362
Fuck off retard

[Anonymous No.13457399]

>>13457362
>okay. by this logic >>13457001 is better than >>13456835 (You) because it is more complex
That's not archetypally anon. Also I meant it's potentiality for expression - I said that earlier and gathered you new.

>I believe that beauty is the only thing that exists
Why say this? There is literally no reason to say this, why not say "I believe mind is the only thing that that exists" Or God. Also what's with your edgy pic anon? It isn't art.

>I've read Plato.
I'm not intentionally being disrespectful but why do you have to drill down into tiny details that you already should know then?

>I'd love for you to lecture me. I'm just trying to learn about art, so I appreciate you telling me about it.
The only thing I ask of you is that you use simpler terms than "higher or lower levels of advancements" and shit

Alright anon my bad, I misunderstood this as more a debate than you starting off to art. I would say read Richard Wagner's (the greatest artistic genius to ever of lived) essay Religion and Art. Even if you don't believe art takes the place of the reciprocative to religion there is still so much fundamental knowledge at least in part 1/3: http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wlpr0126.htm#d0e1158

>also, I encourage you to post more paintings that you like. I'd love to see more of what your taste is
Pretty much all pre-modern.


Now do you know what Jung's archetypes are?

[op No.13457426]

>>13457399
pre-modern? name some artists

[op No.13457436]

>>13457399
your pic looks more like it belongs on the cover of a comic book than in a museum

>That's not archetypally anon
archetypal complex? what does that mean?

>Why say this?
because it's true

>Now do you know what Jung's archetypes are?
of course I know Jung

[Anonymous No.13457438]

>>13457426
Kept it broad on purpose anon, so many to choose from and don't really have a pursonally favourite period of sculptures but someone like Bertel Thorvaldsen is an absolute master maybe even the best and then you have the famous Michelangelo.

Keep in mind the unique aim of the artists anon.

[op No.13457449]

>>13457438
>so many to choose from
okay if there are so many to choose from, name 20 artists that you like. you don't have to if you don't want to. I just want to get a sense of your taste

[Anonymous No.13457455]

>>13457436
>your pic looks more like it belongs on the cover of a comic book than in a museum
Not going to try to claim it's the greatest piece of art anon however you must understand that the medium of expression for this Norse God counts as art when painted such as this and not just simply sketched right?

>archetypal complex? what does that mean?
That it the art is organised in such a way to have a collective emotive of man expressed.

>because it's true
Alright, explain.

>of course I know Jung
So what's the fuss with not understanding symbolism or the concept of unconscious emotive's of mans psyche? As in say they are represented often by human figures yet the archetype itself still remains a further extension of some nigh continually based instinct of say for example "protection" or the human desire for "harmony". Yet at the same time one must look at this basic instincts as aspects of the archetypes.

[Anonymous No.13457457]

>>13457449
Okay I thought you were asking who my absolute favourite or favourite period is. And is this still Sculptures?

[op No.13457480]

>>13457455
>That it the art is organised in such a way to have a collective emotive of man expressed.
okay. I could say the same about >>13457001

>Alright, explain.
see pic related

>So what's the fuss with not understanding symbolism or the concept of unconscious emotive's of mans psyche? As in say they are represented often by human figures yet the archetype itself still remains a further extension of some nigh continually based instinct of say for example "protection" or the human desire for "harmony". Yet at the same time one must look at this basic instincts as aspects of the archetypes.
then what's the point of >>13456835? couldn't the artist have written "a woman knighting a man" on a sheet of paper? why make a painting of it at all?


>>13457457
any visual art

[MKULTRA CHAD: SUPERCHRIST PONT(...) No.13457510]

>>13456470
ive known some French cats that were dismissive of Picasso, mostly due to his high profile and productivity. 'marketing' they'd say.

and Duchamp didn't expose anything. he tried everything, as did many artists French and European artists from the middle 1800s going forward. and obviously he had a restlessness and preciousness and sense of humor that didn't allow him to latch onto anything and to also over turn everything. His cubism needs the root excuse of motion - the staircase, the vibrations of a train. he was facile and indifferent to the aims of any 'style'.

>>13456347
hi op.
im guessing you have some overarching notion of dissolving the differences between some things.

but if you do that, you'll never see what a painting does that a poem doesn't and vice versa.

just sayin.

[Anonymous No.13457516]

>>13456835
>>13457399
>archetypes
shit for shizoids and 19th century academicism is for women and homosexuals

[Anonymous No.13457530]

>>13457480
>okay. I could say the same about >>13457001
Explain, how does it not just go above basic instinctual and emotional responses?

>see pic related
It is indeed a masterpiece anon but that doesn't mean beauty alone exists.

>then what's the point of >>13456835 (You)? couldn't the artist have written "a woman knighting a man" on a sheet of paper? why make a painting of it at all?

I misunderstand but I shall answer, the same reason why the rapturous sight of the Last Judgement could never be reproduced by mere words (refer to Wagner essay).

>any visual art
Oh okay well that's easy.

>Da Vinci
>Raphael
>Thorvaldsen
>Leighton
>Donatello
>the pre Raphaelite's (It would be cheating to name them individually)
>Titian
>Jacques-Louis David
>Caravaggio
>Rembrandt
>Rubens
>Vermeer
>etc

[Anonymous No.13457531]

>>13457516
Explain your reasoning behind such a statement.

[Anonymous No.13457533]

>>13457530
no offence but your fav artists lists reads like a basic survey course of art history

[op No.13457575]

>>13457530
>I misunderstand but I shall answer, the same reason why the rapturous sight of the Last Judgement could never be reproduced by mere words (refer to Wagner essay).

I’d argue that the Last Judgement could be reproduced by “mere” words. It’s called the Book of Revelation.

[Anonymous No.13457586]

>>13456347
Picasso was a massive ass.
kys op

[Anonymous No.13457589]

>>13457533
no offence taken anon, I'm only really trying to find certain niche artists now. However those that reject the greats just simply because of their fame are imbeciles.

[Anonymous No.13457595]

>>13457575
No anon you misunderstand. The last judgement as the famous artwork. It cannot be recreated with words let alone its won artistic medium.

Again read Wagner he talks about this.

[op No.13457604]

>>13457589
>However those that reject the greats just simply because of their fame are imbeciles.
Then what do you have against Picasso? He’s one of the most tradition-oriented artists of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.13457623]

>>13457604
>this whole time you thought I didn't like modern art because le edge
Anon I dislike Picasso because his art is not beautiful - it offers no psychological recursion. Modern art is the destruction of the individual as it is the disintegration of form.

[op No.13457641]

>>13457623
psychological recursion? what does that mean?

[op No.13457650]

>>13457623
>this whole time you thought I didn't like modern art because le edge
I never said that

Okay, I think it’d help me understand why you dislike Picasso if you could get two paintings by him that you like and two paintings by him that you dislike. This shouldn’t be difficult—there are plenty to choose from. And someone like yourself who is so well-versed in art should easily be able to distinguish his better work from his lesser work. Give your reasoning as well when you find them.

You don’t have to do this, but it’d help you prove how knowledgeable you are on art and how refined your taste is.

[Anonymous No.13457660]

>>13457641
It lends its self back to the Psyche, it gives itself purpose. And this is why I consider beauty the fundamental of art; for take the murder, it is may represent some benefit to man while in the case of something such as paedophilia it is of far too pessimistic a nature to offer upon itself a call to the greater or to the better. Yet beauty is not alone limited to suffering hence its assertion through also the good and the joyous. However it is the appreciation of beauty where in which we find the furthest reaches of "art" for art un-appreciated is art none at all, and so man goes through life experiencing art contained within himself yet far too often does he forget of the beauty which is suffering and so by his philistine nature refuses outright in its appreciation - betraying the one true greatest artistic.

I'm currently writing an essay and this is about as short as I may explain this fraction of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk4bcnBqls

>Just at the 6:40 moment watching the Death of Socrates

[Anonymous No.13457663]

>>13457650
>You don’t have to do this, but it’d help you prove how knowledgeable you are on art and how refined your taste is.
Do not mock me anon.

Refer to>>13457660 and if you still need me to do so I shall.

[MKULTRA CHAD: SUPERCHRIST PONT(...) No.13457668]

>>13457623
hmm
I don't see any disintegration . . .

[Anonymous No.13457671]

>>13457668
>MKULTRA CHAD: SUPERCHRIST PONTIFEX, REVELATOR and LIBERATOR of the BROLETARIAT, SALVATOR PUSSY
Kek

>hmm
>I don't see any disintegration . . .
Yep none at all.

[Anonymous No.13457675]

>>13457668
T has never read pomo anything

It's based off hyperrealism and the point of it is a drive nihilism through irony

[Anonymous No.13457682]

>>13456924
What's your native language, son?

[MKULTRA CHAD: SUPERCHRIST PONT(...) No.13457685]

>>13457671
of form?

its a square. its form for everybody.

>>13457675
its a square. its form for everybody.

go read some actual art history.

[Anonymous No.13457690]

>>13457685
>of form?
>its a square. its form for everybody.
The form (which is man literally or not) has become nothing - only an eternally finite black cube.

[Anonymous No.13457705]

>>13456425
My man, this concern is so counter intuitive and middlebrow that my hs english teacher thought she was being deep when she asked if fine art, in the style of the modernists and post modernists, could be considered 'literature'. Yes, Picasso is on the level of emojis and Romeo and Juliet written in emoji speak is on the level of the original text.

[MKULTRA CHAD: SUPERCHRIST PONT(...) No.13457764]

>>13457690
no
a man or woman is someone who lives and breathes and works and paints and may or may not look at paintings, but most likely wants to fuck and certainly will die.

the form is a square seen clearly and has become simply itself as hopefully the man or woman has or will.

if you argue it is other than it is, then I guess you think painting is literature.

[MKULTRA CHAD: SUPERCHRIST PONT(...) No.13457797]

[Anonymous No.13457820]

>>13457764
>the form is a square seen clearly and has become simply itself as hopefully the man or woman has or will.

No you fundamentally misunderstand what art is twice, in the way that you suppose there is no innate to art and in the way that you believe the square has any innate effect upon man beyond the most mild and fractured tile of an instinctual response to basic shape. Art is a very complex thing however it expresses the collectively unconscious emotive's of mans psyche. You find the trend of mans disintegration into a nothingness at the core of modern art, whether mans emergence with say the outside world in surrealism, or the extreme destruction and simplification of man in expressionism. He is falling into the collective losing his own self value. This cube (as meaningless as it is) also represents that total destruction of man into nothingness - it just so happens there is nothing to compensate in value for nothingness and so it lacks all.

[Anonymous No.13457914]

>>13457820
>You find the trend of mans disintegration into a nothingness at the core of modern art

No you don't

[Anonymous No.13457940]

>>13456450
Because Bob Dylan WROTE words you fucking pleb. Painters don't write. They paint.

[Anonymous No.13457986]

>>13457914
>doesn't even understand what I'm saying
>can't even respond

[Anonymous No.13458018]

>>13457986
it's nonsense but i can understand it to be the same brainlet shit that is insensitive to actual art history instead of some ooga booga man is diminished and so is his art without any reference to what modernists were trying to achieve.

[Anonymous No.13458111]

>>13458018
>thinks I'm saying the square has meaning
>where in he thought that
>calls meaning ooga booga man
>projects his lack of knowledge on art history
>still doesn't fucking understand a word I said\

Refer to>>13457623
>>13457641
>>13457660

[Anonymous No.13458148]

>>13458111
why should i care about your narrow reading in art history despite everything else written about art before and after the 19th century? literally read anything else about art before continuing with this ahistorical nonsense

[op No.13458753]

>>13457660
but what makes The Death of Socrates beautiful?

[op No.13458793]

>>13458753
>>13457660
and is this beautiful? why or why not?

[Anonymous No.13458935]

>>13457530
>Thorvaldsen
>Leighton
>the pre Raphaelite
Oh boy that's bad

[Anonymous No.13458958]

>>13456347
i agree with your first statement. but a poet is just someone who thinks a certain way, a poet can make films or paintings or nothing

[op No.13458973]

>>13458958
exactly!

[Anonymous No.13458979]

>>13457623
>"I hate that aesthetic game of the eye and the mind," Pablo said, "played by these connoisseurs, these mandarins who 'appreciate' beauty. What is beauty, anyway? There's no such thing. I never 'appreciate,' any more than I 'like.' I love or I hate."

[Anonymous No.13458983]

>>13458973
and so a painting is still a painting (and can be thought of as a painting), no?

[op No.13458987]

>>13458983
yes, but it can also be thought of as a poem. they don’t have to contradict each other.

[op No.13459002]

>>13458983
I should’ve written in my OP post “not only as visual art”