/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13465559]

Capitalism killed aesthetics

[Anonymous No.13465575]

>>13465559
As your own ugly picture so tragically shows.

[Anonymous No.13465585]

>>13465559
That seems like a favourable trade-off. Billions lifted out of poverty and starvation on the condition that artists cater to everybody instead of the very few pretentious aristocrats.
You're also ignoring the fact that we are in the golden era for TV and film.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13465600]

>>13465575
Droplets of rain on a exotic fern is ugly to you?

>>13465585
Capitalism necessitated those billions to work their mills. But now that there’s been a labor surplus since the 1970s capitalism has switched tactics and is now trying to kill off the excess. You don’t see it? No. You’re too distracted by the tv and films.

[Anonymous No.13465609]

>>13465600
With a quotenin a black squrare and the name of a random website stamped on it? Certainly. Even more so when the image bears at best a very tenuous relationship to the quote. Its bad taste through and through.

[Anonymous No.13465627]

>>13465585
>Billions lifted out of poverty
He actually fell for the world bank meme

[Anonymous No.13465633]

>>13465559
That's a reactionary view, since you're implying aesthetics was better in the past (when? during feudalism?). Aesthetics has yet to be freed from the clutches of ideology and economic subjugation. Let us not fantasize about a return to some fictional idealized past, but instead look forwards toward what the future might bring.

[Anonymous No.13465652]

>>13465600
Last I recall a significant portion of the world is still in poverty. Socialism isn't going to lift them out of it; capitalism will.

[Anonymous No.13465654]

>>13465633
>if you say something in the past was better than it is now then you're a reactionary
god I hate Marxists

[Anonymous No.13465668]

>>13465585
>You're also ignoring the fact that we are in the golden era for TV and film.

i for one cannot wait for the newest marvel flick or the next star wars. the valiant artists at disney are really looking out for us in this brave new world.

[Anonymous No.13465671]

>>13465652
the kool aid's dribbling out of your ears

[Anonymous No.13465678]

>>13465668
To be honest I misspoke. I should have said golden era for TV, not film.

[Anonymous No.13465694]

>>13465652
>Socialism isn't going to lift them out of it; capitalism will.
LMAO
the world is getting divided into rich and poor more and more. better buy assets while you still can

[Anonymous No.13465695]

>equating capitalism to chill abstactions
OP is 3

[Anonymous No.13465717]

>>13465654
that's literally what reactionary means man. like look up the definition, it means you want to return to a previous status quo

[Anonymous No.13465734]

>>13465652
meanwhile 1% own half the planet's wealth. come on bud. get with it.

[Anonymous No.13465758]

>>13465734
Acting as if the poor aren't just as responsible for riches as the rich are for poverty. If the poor deserved it you would rise up against your capitalist overlords. You don't because you are inferior. And that's something the French Revolution inadvertently proved: when people are given an equal footing class hierarchies still arise. Some people are just inferior.

[Anonymous No.13465789]

>>13465758
>the poor are as responsible for riches as the rich are for poverty
What do you know about responsibility, anon?

[Anonymous No.13465798]

>>13465789
My experiences are irrelevant to the veracity of my point

[Anonymous No.13465799]

>>13465798
What did you mean by reponsibility, then?

[Anonymous No.13465804]

>>13465758
i feel really inferior to silicon valley google programmers I tell ya what

[Anonymous No.13465807]

>>13465799
When you're done with your little pantomime come back and we can actually talk.

[Anonymous No.13465815]

>>13465652
Capitalism will destroy the earth before it does. Let's not forget that the way capitalism works is by betting 7 times our current value on future growth. This is why the population crisis isn't being addressed. Population rise is causing destruction of environment. And while countries are going through their economic tooling stage or industrial revolutions they are breeding like mice. China is just now coming out of the other side of this and has a developing middle class. But look at the destruction it caused. Now Brazil is doing so slowly.

But fear Africa's population spike my friends. Fear it. It will be the ruin of us all in 50 years.

[Anonymous No.13465816]

>>13465758
yet when revolution DOES happen it's all "NOOO MUH INNOCENTS MUH HUMAN RIGHTS" god just shut up already you absolute homo

[Anonymous No.13465818]

>>13465804
If you weren't you would A) get rich or B) revolt with your coworkers and count the fruit of your labour as your own

[Anonymous No.13465820]

>>13465816
based

[Anonymous No.13465832]

>>13465807
I just wish you would explain your point about responsibility, anon. It could prove interesting if you actually articulated it and not just use it to base a bunch of assumptions.

[Anonymous No.13465833]

>>13465818
welp you've convinced me it's all my fault money-grubbing sociopaths run the world

[Anonymous No.13465839]

>>13465816
Awfully strange of you to construct a strawman of something I never said and then proceed to get angry at me for it. If you wanna start addressing what I actually said instead of projecting what you perceive to be the views of most capitalists onto me then we can start talking.

[Anonymous No.13465842]

>>13465833
Well obviously. I think we should kill all billionares after ten years. Ten years should be the term limit of that much wealth. Then you are killed and your killers take the spoils.

[Anonymous No.13465844]

>>13465833
A slave who doesn't cut the throat of his master when shaving his beard deserves to be a slave

[Anonymous No.13465850]

>>13465842
Hmm, at which point will you be finally convinced the problem is systemic (the point of this thread)?

[Anonymous No.13465857]

>>13465832
You can look up the word in a dictionary. I meant it is the fault of the poor that riches exist. They outnumber the rich. If they wanted to they could seize the fruits of their labour.

[Anonymous No.13465862]

>>13465844
perhaps, but when the slave has never seen his master in person, what should he do?

[Anonymous No.13465864]

>>13465850
I'm >>13465815

[Anonymous No.13465865]

>>13465857
Fuck off Rand.

[Anonymous No.13465866]

>>13465839
no, i will not have an earnest sincere discussion with you because you are beneath me. you deserve nothing but low effort shitposting and that is what you shall receive.

[Anonymous No.13465869]

>>13465862
if the poor wanted to seize the fruits of their labour they could. Instead they routinely hand them over to the rich.

[Anonymous No.13465870]

>>13465864
Oh ok, I agree then

[Anonymous No.13465875]

>>13465869
again, I will never see my masters face-to-face, so what then?

[Anonymous No.13465876]

>>13465875
Drive to every mansion and burn them to the ground.

[Anonymous No.13465878]

>>13465559
Actually, the Greeks killed aesthetics. From a distance.

[Anonymous No.13465888]

>>13465875
Then you along with other poorfags take up arms and storm up the stairs and unveil your master by force. Then cut his head off and roll it down the stairs. That's what the Russians did. That's what the South Americans did. That's what the French revolutionists did. That's what the American revolutionists did.

[Anonymous No.13465896]

>>13465876
>>13465888

I can't really argue with this. vOv

[Anonymous No.13465912]

>>13465896
Alternatively unions could just demand higher wages. Companies can't function without workers. In this regard labourers hold much more power than owners. And if any worker refuses to strike with you, kill him

[Anonymous No.13465913]

>>13465866
Based retard too ineloquent to expound his point that he feels strongly about.

[Anonymous No.13465917]

>>13465912
Lol lets kill all of China and Brazil. Strikes only mattered before globalism.

[Anonymous No.13465924]

>>13465585
>bro if you earn more than 1,90$/day you're no longer poor
worst meme desu

[Anonymous No.13465931]

>>13465917
You think every company will relocate to china and Brazil if workers started demanding higher wages?

[Anonymous No.13465933]

>>13465913
at least he didn't meme the dictionary lol

[Anonymous No.13465937]

>>13465931
>You think every company will relocate to china
they already have

[Anonymous No.13465943]

>>13465585
Film is fucking dead. Globalism killed it. TV is a garbage medium for drama as it hinges on leaving cliffhangers to bring the audience back again or click next episode. TV drama is the methadone clinic of motion pictures that just want to keep you coming back for shit. And because they want to renew seasons they fucking drag the show out for example Wilfred or Sopranos which should have been fucking 2 season shows.

T. BA in Film

[Anonymous No.13465945]

>>13465937
were obviously not talking about overseas factories

[Anonymous No.13465952]

>>13465888
LMFAO
dumb marxist pipedreamer
all of those revolutionary movements were bankrolled by other interests christ you think some russian peasants went out and organized a revolution? fuck you retards are dumb.

[Anonymous No.13465956]

>>13465945
or literature

[Anonymous No.13465958]

>>13465952
Area 51 will be owned by the people.

[Anonymous No.13465968]

>>13465933
The word you're looking for is bombastic, retard.

[Anonymous No.13465981]

>>13465600
>palmate parallel venation
>exotic fern
Cringe. Can you say anything without embarrassing yourself?

[Anonymous No.13465983]

>>13465968
>I'm not an ineloquent retard, I'm bombastic!

[Anonymous No.13466012]

>>13465981
>>palmate parallel venation

try reddit where your ACKCHYUALLY gotchas will generate more than tacit cringe

[Anonymous No.13466020]

>>13465943
Breaking bad
X files
Manhunt: unabomber
Band of brothers
Chernobyl
Sopranos
The wire
Game of Thrones (disregard the last few seasons)
Black Mirror
House of cards
Stranger things
Mindhunter
13 reasons why
Narcos
Fargo
Bojack horseman
Evangelion
Rick and Morty
OJ SImpson Case
Mr robot

These are all off the top of my head. I don't watch comedy so I'm sure there's many I missed in that genre. If you deny that we're in the golden era for TV you're just a contrarian.

[Anonymous No.13466026]

>>13465983
Bombastic is an insult for people who use pompus and verbose diction when it is unnecessary. It is my favorite word because of the irony of using it as it is itself verbose. You're welcome for teaching it to you.

[Anonymous No.13466041]

>>13466020
No, I just know how TV screenplays work because I was trained to and I hate the medium for the above reasons. Comedy is actually the only exception as TV allows it to stay currrent and the Film format isn't suited to it as well as TV. Unfortunately Film is fairly well dead because production houses feel safer betting on the blockbuster CGI nightmare than the smaller budgeted movie.

[Anonymous No.13466046]

>>13465758
>the poor aren't just as responsible for riches as the rich are for poverty
I wasn't following the thread bery well in the first place because I think left/right econ is mushybrained, so thank you for waking me up. This shit is hilariously liberal

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13466054]

>>13465652
Capitalism is why there’s a significant portion of poverty in the world. Its requires a portion of homeless and desperate in order to keep wages low. And it’s only gotten worse in this latter stage

[Anonymous No.13466056]

>>13465559
aesthetics killed capitalism

[Anonymous No.13466072]

>>13466041
I don't disagree with your points especially with regards to the cliffhanger stuff but I think you over exaggerate the significance. We are in a golden age for TV, cliffhangers or not.

[Anonymous No.13466073]

>>13466012
Confusing a palm for a fern is very cringe and pedestrian. Le tippers are the kind of people that do not know this thing.
If you don't have this very basic knowledge of this world we live in, you are like a little baby. Even if you do not know the proper nomenclature, you should still have that basic familiarity. If you don't, you are a child, you are a degenerate. This is analogous to pointing at a dog and exclaiming, "kitty".

[Anonymous No.13466086]

>>13466072
We are only because the writers who would have done good movies are forced to write serials now. That is also why I hate it, because I am not interested in writing serials.

[Anonymous No.13466099]

>>13466086
I think films are like novellas and serials are like novels. In serials you get to explore the character depth a lot more and flesh out the story. There's no way you could achieve something like breaking bad in a film.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13466100]

>>13466073
>pedestrian
It’s obviously not my background. Geez, please forgive.

[Anonymous No.13466109]

>>13466099
Watch Youth by Paolo Sorrentino. What I like about Film is the subtlety that makes you watch it again.

[Anonymous No.13466168]

>>13465585
>>13465600
>>13465627
>>13465652
>>13465694
>>13465734
>>13465758
>>13465815
Capitalism, as we know it, is just the observation of the convergent wave, and what that wave converges towards lies outside of ’the theater’. Thereby instead of asking the question ‘Do we want capitalism?’ we should reformulate our inquiry as: ‘What does capitalism want with you?’

What this means is that the universe uses selection to dissipate entropy and thus succeed in a higher-level process against other universes. Many alternate realities have already been selected against due to failing to dissipate entropy and thus suffering a 'true end of history’.

Philosopher Nick Land holds that intelligence (and therefore AI), evolution and capital are all roughly the same thing, or products of, or names given to individual components of a positive feedback loop that is baked into a materialist reality. They are all localised examples of entropy dissipation. To Land this is something that has been occurring before humans and has not reached its point of finality in the existence of humans or human society.

So the story of life goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity causing accelerating techno-economic interactivity which crumbles social order into an auto-sophisticating machine runaway, ending with machine dominance over humanity.

*not my writing*

[Anonymous No.13466174]

>>13465585
>>13465668
>>13465943

good read for you guys:
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywood

[Anonymous No.13466179]

>>13465559
How come aesthetics still exists then?

[Anonymous No.13466182]

>>13466100
If you have never seen a fern before I can only assume that you are an alien. That's not woke (like egoism) and you're making me uncomfortable. Just go find some ferns and look at them and I'll forgive you.

[Anonymous No.13466187]

>>13465585
Imagine being THIS MUCH of a bugman NPC.

[Anonymous No.13466198]

>>13465585
>>13465652
If I could wage a genocide, it’d be against philistine capitalists like you. Your lot before absolutely anyone. Nobody revolts me more.

[Anonymous No.13466213]

>>13466198
Yeah, well you can't, so keep huffing your own farts, retard. Do something good for society instead of telling others how you'd love to murder them if given the chance.

[Anonymous No.13466228]

>>13465943
>T. BA in Film
Thanks for letting us know your opinion is worthless

[Anonymous No.13466235]

>>13465943
Globalism didn't kill it, video games did. The video game industry has been a larger industry for several years now.

[Anonymous No.13466236]

>>13466228
Film is superior to the written word in innumerable ways for fiction.

[Anonymous No.13466244]

>>13466235
Videogames are incomparable as they are a second person medium and therefore trash.

[Anonymous No.13466267]

>>13466244
>second person medium
That nonsense aside, the video game industry still grew bigger than the movie industry in recent history. This isn't debatable. I'm just telling you why movies are "dead" now... in your eyes at least, since movies are still being made and some of them are still being enjoyed by both the masses and respectable members of our society.

[Anonymous No.13466318]

>>13466267
The nice thing is thqt with rise in access to technology the independent film is still alive, however distribution is questionable. Streaming has destroyed the cinema as well because tiny screens and TVs are just not large enough and the sanctity of not using a phone in the theater creates a better environment.

[Anonymous No.13466339]

>>13465717
Marx must be a reactionary himself then

[Anonymous No.13466364]

>>13466213
>Yeah, well you can't, so keep huffing your own farts, retard.
Hardly the point, “retard”. I’m only venting a sentiment, clearly. Unsurprising that this basic interaction strains your comprehension.
>Do something good for society instead of telling others how you'd love to murder them if given the chance
Vacuous virtue signaling on 4chan of all places, shut the fuck up you pathetic dweeb. Are you unironically under the impression that you perform some significant “good to society”? Because you’re the human equivalent of a functioning cog? That can and will be easily and thoughtless replaced?
Anyway,
Your god is James Patterson. If you can’t see the implications of that for the society you so virtuously care about, you’re not only a soulless philstine, you might be literally part rock. You’re a cancer cell, for all your moralizing. We’d genuinely be better off without you.

[Anonymous No.13466408]

>>13466364
truly based

c-contribute to society!, he wheezes as his master's cum dribbles down his chin

[Anonymous No.13466425]

>>13466364
>told you're an asshole who should do something better with himself
>respond with no u argumentation and continue to not do that, like an asshole
Classic move. Barely read your post by the way because it's full of bullshit with no bearing on anything.

[Anonymous No.13466462]

>>13466425
honest question anon, do you believe Wall Street "contributes to society"? after all, capitalism is the perfect system, so wealth must always be proportional to one's contribution to that system, is that right?

[Anonymous No.13466473]

>>13466462
Why are you talking about Wall Street now? And who said capitalism is perfect? Jesus christ, I hate nagging fags like you who refuse to confront what the other person is saying to you.

[Anonymous No.13466480]

>>13466425
Why did you even bother posting this completely worthless weaselry? Just to prove you can form sentences?

[Anonymous No.13466486]

Nothing killed aesthetics. Art died because its spark was exhausted. The communist pipedream that we can have free art under communism is ultimately nothing but that; a pipedream.
Buckle up faggot. You're in for a cold and godless century.

[Anonymous No.13466487]

>>13466473
lol, what did you say you dumb faggot besides "get a jawrb"?

[Anonymous No.13466499]

>>13466473
He’s not me retard. God you’re unfathomably dumb.

[Anonymous No.13466512]

>>13466486
Define art.

[Anonymous No.13466531]

>>13466512
The expression of humanity through a medium

[Anonymous No.13466558]

>>13466486
Art can’t “die” unless humans do. Our two most distinctive and innate features are war and art. We’ve just been in a drought. It happens. It won’t last forever, nor imo very much longer at all. And even then, as bad as it is, it’s not so bad, if you follow. McCarthy and Ferrante are all time Greats (others would have a more generous list, I’m strict), Robert Eggers is showing Kubrickian potential, von Trier is a legend, Arvo Part is a legend, Penderecki is excellent.

[Anonymous No.13466564]

>>13465633
based marxposting

[Anonymous No.13466572]

>>13466558
Im not saying that art itself died, but art in the western world has died. There is very little creativitiy left; it has all been exhausted in the late 19th century. The only thing left is trying to imitate earlier artistic currents (which is just hollow aesthetics), or "art" that is just political commentary and has no aesthetic merit; it's glorified propaganda, and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.13466601]

>>13466572
It can’t die in the West or anywhere. Anywhere there are humans there will be art. The quality will depend on the quality of the local humans.
I agree it’s a bleak time, but it’s definitely not “dead”, just, like I said, a drought. We’re nowhere near as impressive as the 19th century, but we’re not meritless either. Check out those names I gave if you haven’t, not so much Eggers as the others, since he’s still mostly potential.

[Anonymous No.13467219]

>>13466198
>this post was written from my macbook pro :)

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13467394]

>>13467219
Incredible

[Anonymous No.13467645]

>>13466531
Okay, so what about killer7? That fits your definition and it was made in 2005. Just one example too, it's not an exception by any means.

[Anonymous No.13467811]

>if it won't make us money hand over fist we won't publish it
>and we only know whether it will or won't sell by comparing it to previous works published
>so if yours isn't a copy of yesterday's best seller and totally safe and unoffensive you can pack your shit and get out, bud, unless you know the bigwig
kill me.
>>13465924
>doesn't factor in cost of living at all
wow so this is...the power of modern academia.

[Anonymous No.13468119]

>>13466174
Not them but very interested read. Thanks Anon.

[Anonymous No.13468502]

>>13465671
>>13465694
>>13465734
>>13465815
>>13466054
>>13466198
Capitalism transformed China, a poverty stricken shithole, into a global superpower. Capitalism has lifted 270 million Indians out of poverty in 10 years.
You leftists are so dumb. I really hope you try a revolution. It will be histories greatest eugenics program when you all get killed.
Read Marx.

[Anonymous No.13468519]

>>13465585
>on the condition that artists cater to everybody instead of the very few pretentious aristocrats.
even this isn't really true
a true aristocrat could afford to hire artists to work on whatever he wanted

[Anonymous No.13468523]

>>13465717
>the meal you made yesterday was better than this one
>WTF you want to kill and replace me?

[Anonymous No.13468551]

>>13465585
>we are in the golden era for TV and film.
That has definitely been over for years, there aren’t even death twitches anymore

[Anonymous No.13468556]

>>13468551
>Twin Peaks
>X files
>Sopranos
What did boomers have? Brady Bunch? LOL

[Anonymous No.13468560]

>>13467394
>not even merited to post this image as a reply, just dropping it
You lefties really are just narcissists trying to maintain your smug self satisfaction.

[Anonymous No.13468562]

>>13465815
>Now Brazil is doing so slowly
Our cultural, social and economic situation will get even worse. Things are regressing, and by the time people finally realize it, it'll already be too late; mark my words.

>t.Uma delícia

[Anonymous No.13468565]

>>13468556
All those are from a past era, we have cape shit and equality fetishizing art shit now.

[Anonymous No.13468581]

>>13465559

did someone say aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.13468603]

>>13468581
I made a burgerpunk blog the other day in a sleep deprived fervor because I want something to pop up on google.

[Anonymous No.13468620]

>>13466020
I'll disregard the ones I haven't watched, but anyway:
>Breaking Bad
Mediocre drama, GIlligan had no idea what he was doing and it shows. Half a dozen good moments serve only the show how fickle the memories of the public are towards the lack of quality between them.
>X files
Well done procedural, had a lot of creative ideas for the time it was made.
>Sopranos
Great television, spawned a bunch of terrible dramas, but may also have indirectly led to Mad Men.
>The Wire
Also great, a multitude of characters and focus handled very well.
>Game of Thrones
Decent first season, all the rest varies from mediocre to terrible; funny how viewership kept rising as quality kept tanking, untill the turning point where even the most brain dead espectator started criticizing it.
>Black Mirror
How can this shit be praised in a world where The Twilight Zone made astoundingly better content in the same format fifty years before it is something I'll never understand
>Stranger Things
>Lets see how many seasons we can carry on with the same recycled plot and nostalgia.
>Narcos
Ok series with some good actors about irl events, do you really see it as great tv?
>Bojack
Quality gets worse each season, the most remarkable thing about it is that it's stil around
>Evangelion
An anime from more than twenty years ago, what's your point?
>Rick and Morty
Absolutely imbecilic trash, probably the worst thing on your list.

[Anonymous No.13468634]

>>13468502
>Capitalism transformed China, a poverty stricken shithole, into a global superpower.
China is, currently, a *cyberpunk* poverty-stricken shithole. I actually don't wanna debate this one, thinking about China pisses ME off

>Capitalism has lifted 270 million Indians out of poverty in 10 years.
Oh man. Oh man oh man OH MAN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od-s7tsuqmU
You want to hear the best part? They know what's coming. The government at least. I lost the time stamp but they're preparing a lot of hospitals for lung conditions in 10-15 years

[Anonymous No.13468646]

>>13466020
Most of those are shit, the good ones are old and done, and even those became shit by the end in accordance with the shitegeist

[Anonymous No.13468700]

>>13465559
yes, those concrete communist blocks are peak aesthetics...

[Anonymous No.13468705]

>>13468634
>China is, currently, a *cyberpunk* poverty-stricken shithole
i don't really like china all that much but china has high speed rail and maglev trains

does america?

[Anonymous No.13469444]

>>13468502
Have you ever been to China? No? I have, its pretty shit. You are literally so far up your own ass, that youre pretty much the American-stylized version of ouroboros.

[Anonymous No.13469477]

>>13468581
Beautiful!

>>13468700
He didnt bring up communism, but your stupid brain automatically thinks whenever capitalism is criticized
>LOOK AT COOMUNIST COUNTRIES
Your brain has defaulted into thinking that there can only be two types of society: capitalist or communist.
Youre a fucking retard if you think capitalism is good.

You know, I took an entrepeneurship class in uni once and we had a guest speaker come in who was a writer for Forbes or sumtin, and all he talked about was why capitalism was so good. His argument was that over time goods that were exclusive only to the rich will eventually be affordable for the poor, cars being an example. He said something along the lines of, "one day everyone on the planet will have an Iphone! Isnt that wonderful? Capitalism is good! iPhones for everyone! Amirite!"

[Anonymous No.13469481]

>>13468620
>>Breaking Bad
>Mediocre drama,
Why I like it :(

[Anonymous No.13469487]

>>13465585
>You're also ignoring the fact that we are in the golden era for TV and film.
lmao

[Anonymous No.13469496]

>>13468634
>>13469444
You think modern day China is bad? lol it's paradise compared to communist China.

[Anonymous No.13469507]

>>13465943
>13 reasons why

[Anonymous No.13469508]

>>13469496
Well then I guess there’s absolutely nothing to complain about if something used to be worse!

[Anonymous No.13469533]

>>13465652
The biggest economic success stories of going from third world conditions to first world in short order have been socialistic. Capitalists want to claim China which has 50% of its economy in the public sector and is dominated by a communist party yet don't want to claim Venezuela which has 30% of its economy in the public sector.

[Anonymous No.13469536]

>>13465585
I haven't been on /lit/ in about 3 weeks and this is what I return to.

[Anonymous No.13469610]

>>13468581
You brainlets don't even understand that capitalist globalism is what makes it possible to live in the most beautiful areas on the planet while you maintain your slaves on the other side of the planet, stuck in shitholes like your pic related. You're smart enough to parse a number of books but not smart enough to realize that the territory has changed from one nation to all nations worldwide. The wealthy elite don't even live in the US.

[Anonymous No.13469870]

>>13468502
Asian countries in general like Japan, China, and Korea have become very aesthetic over the last several decades, and it has to do with their overall average IQ being higher than ours, so they thrive better in urban landscapes, and as a result are happier and ready to turn the mundane into something aesthetic more often.

Just check some of these photographers, for example:

https://twitter.com/liamwong
https://twitter.com/noealz
https://twitter.com/cbje_tokyo
https://twitter.com/UrbanFoxxxx
https://twitter.com/AestheticsJapan

Twitter, by the way, is full of photographers and other artists who produce great work today. It is very easy to find countless others. You will also find thousands of digital artists on websites like artstation.com or conceptartworld.com. Aesthetics has moved into the realm of digital craftsmanship and if you ignore the digital it's no wonder why you think aesthetics is missing in today's world.

And before you say "but all those photos and images are doctored up" — so were classical paintings and illustrations of people and places. Aesthetics does not forbid utilizing technology in order to enhance the visceral emotions, because aesthetics arises from that very process to begin with.

[Anonymous No.13469906]

>>13469870
None of this is aesthetic unless you're 14 years old.

[Anonymous No.13469926]

>>13468620
>Mediocre drama,
Stopped reading there. Breaking Bad is one of the artistic masterpieces of our time. If you didn't like it chances are you are a woman or a sociopath.

[Anonymous No.13469927]

>>13465609
Capitalism is not inherently flawed, but a trust in capitalism is. The market responds to belief, and belief only. This image, along with the countless others like it, demonstrate the all consuming power of consumption. Even the revolution has been commercialized.

[Anonymous No.13469934]

>>13469906
All of it is aesthetic unless you're low IQ or lack sufficient knowledge about post-computerized urban culture.

[Anonymous No.13469942]

>>13465585
>Billions lifted out of poverty.
You have to be out of your mind.

[Anonymous No.13469951]

Good thing communism didn't kill art lmao

[Anonymous No.13469971]

>>13468562
t. cirofag

[Anonymous No.13469978]

>>13469533
Venezuela's "private sector" economy is basically just giving free oil to China and Russia to pay for debts.

[Anonymous No.13469981]

>>13469934
>all images are images
Sure it has a clear aesthetic schema, but it is ugly and without moral virtue.

[Anonymous No.13469987]

>>13469533
>using soviet growth as an example of why socialism works when their economy was exclusively based on stealing resources from satellite nations as well as forced labor and awful wealth distribution that pales in comparison to how it is in contemporary capitalist countries

[Anonymous No.13469994]

>>13465559
With Capitalism, you can buy the shit you like provided you work. With Communism, you get the same shit as everyone else and it's typically low-quality. Also with Capitalism, people are free to pursue their happiness by almost any means available, with artists free to create almost anything they like. With Communism/Socialism/Marxism, typically there's heavy censorship due to being sensitive to criticism, and because nobody has money then who's going to buy what you create, and also if you sell it you can't legally sell it for more than what it cost to make.

I believe that Capitalism, and the freedom that comes with it, is the greatest producer of creativity. Will some people attempt creative ventures JUST in the hopes of money? Perhaps, and either it gains a following and makes them the money they desire or it's viewed as lack-lustre and nobody buys it because nobody found it interesting enough to talk to others about and encourage. The customer dictates the market, because customers buy what they want, what they view as more valuable than the hard-earned money in their pocket, so by definition a business venture only succeeds if they provide something the customers deem to be of sufficient value. Any successful business venture is giving the people what they want, and they earn the money they get. With Communism/Socialism/Marxism, the market is dictated by the authoritarian in charge. Identical houses for everyone, with identical furniture, identical vehicles, identical televisions, Where's the aesthetics in that? With Capitalism, people are truly free to be individuals, though granted one glance at LGBT parades and suddenly that seems like a questionable prospect...

[Anonymous No.13469993]

>>13469934
omg he took a picture of some random japanese street and spent 8 minutes color grading it so deep and AESTHETIC

[Anonymous No.13470003]

>>13465924
Unironically, anyone who makes roughly $35,000 USD per year or more are in the global 1%.

[Anonymous No.13470004]

>>13467394
The image should be altered. Instead of a malnourished destitute serf we should have a rich whiny college student who has access to more information, luxury, and entertainment than the world has ever known, who has no fear of starvation, famine, or disease, all thanks to the work of capitalism, talking about how bad it is that the homeless guy across the street is suffering. If you really wanted socialism you would give your belongings to a charity and go live in the woods.

[Anonymous No.13470008]

>>13466020
Someday you will realize that the skill with which art is made has very little to do with the actual quality of the art. I am certain that none of these shows have helped you to live a better life. None of them have made you a better, happier, or more righteous person. In all likelihood, each of these shows has increased your cynicism, caused you to question the existence or reality of moral goodness, made you feel hopeless or at least incapable of making a positive difference. In essence, each of these shows exists to demoralize you, and most incredibly, the skill of the creators has caused you to praise them for it, even though they have harmed you.

[Anonymous No.13470043]

>>13470008
Are you saying only art which edifies you and improves your life can be good art? In that case throw out 99% of books and start reading investment manuals.

[Anonymous No.13470094]

>>13470043
It's very telling that you believe investment manuals improve your life, and also that you refuse to read them. Do you really need more evidence that you have been demoralized?

[Anonymous No.13470107]

>>13469981
>it is ugly
I don't find it ugly. I find it as marvelous as a great thunderstorm was perceived by the ancients.

>and without moral virtue.
I find digital artists who spend their lives bringing a sense of aesthetics to modern urban landscapes to be morally virtuous. Explain why you don't.

>>13469993
Stop gatekeeping and adding nothing of substance to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.13470114]

>>13470094
Of course they will. You have the freedom to do anything when you're rich. Also how do you know that I don't read them?

[Anonymous No.13470121]

>>13465559
Capitalism may be based on "chill abstractions", but does it produce them? Are the fruits of capitalism really divorced from aesthetic content?

[Anonymous No.13470127]

>>13470107
I mean the images do not contain any moral virtue. They are ugly, because they show ugliness. They show greed, indifference, despair, destruction, desecration, humiliation, dehumanization, depersonalization, and so on. And they show this without insight, without meaningful commentary, without hope, without adequate judgement, without value, without virtue. They are ugly, because they are simple and crude and without skill. They are without good humor. They are without harmony. These "artists" simply adjust the colors to be seductive, and then you spend how much time looking at, saving, reflecting on what? A wasteland? A hellscape? a cage? You have become so desensitized that you can no longer look at the world as it is. You can no longer see things clearly. Unless a toxic, caustic glaze is smeared over a desolate image, you cannot tolerate your anxiety. Your mind is a garden, and you are planting weeds.

[Anonymous No.13470136]

>>13470114
>of course they will
If rich people are so happy, they why do they spend so much?

[Anonymous No.13470144]

>>13465585
>we are in the golden era for TV and film
bait

[Anonymous No.13470185]

>>13468502
Capitalism in China. Literally selling shit for money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrv78nG9R04

The fact that we are too retard (yet) to make possible a classless and moneyless society, doesn't mean that Capitalism is awesome.

[Anonymous No.13470195]

>>13470127
>They show greed, indifference, despair, destruction, desecration, humiliation, dehumanization, depersonalization, and so on.
Or maybe you're just projecting those things into the photos? That seems likely from where I'm standing.

>And they show this without insight, without meaningful commentary, without hope, without adequate judgement, without value, without virtue.
There is insight. There is meaningful commentary. There is value. There is even hope — but all of these things portray and support a world that you do not welcome.

>These "artists" simply adjust the colors to be seductive, and then you spend how much time looking at, saving, reflecting on what? A wasteland? A hellscape? a cage? You have become so desensitized that you can no longer look at the world as it is. You can no longer see things clearly.
What does it mean to look at the world "as it is" or "clearly," and how does that relate to aesthetics?

>Your mind is a garden, and you are planting weeds.
We have been living in the modern urban landscape for decades now and cultures continue to thrive, new subcultures continue to emerge, and new artistic endeavors continue to be taken. You dismiss them all because you don't welcome what they are about, but they still exist, and the people surrounding them are still thriving, being creative, and enjoying themselves.

[Anonymous No.13470199]

>>13466054
>Capitalism is why there’s a significant portion of poverty in the world
Modern capitalism dates from around the 17th century. Are you seriously saying that there wasn’t a significant population worldwide living in poverty prior to that date? I hope not, because this would be an absolutely retarded argument.

[Anonymous No.13470201]

>>13470107
I am adding substance to the discussion by telling you the art you enjoy is terrible.

[Anonymous No.13470203]

>>13470136
I dont know about rich people in general but you asked me if riches would make ME happy not people in general. I'm saying yes. If I was rich I could fulfil my dream. also
>why do rich people spend so much
cause they have money lmao

[Anonymous No.13470212]

>>13469994
>With Communism/Socialism/Marxism, the market is dictated by the authoritarian in charge.
You are a fucking retard.
Stop with your 1950s McCarthyism.
You don't even know what Capitalism is. Neither what a classless society means.

[Anonymous No.13470238]

>>13469870
>>13469934
>>13470107
>>13470195
the visual arts equivalent of doomer youtube playlist
also
>concept art aka the capeshit of visual arts
OH NO NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.13470241]

>>13469978
Doesn't that count as public sector since their oil is nationalized?

[Anonymous No.13470244]

>>13470195
So many words, and so little said. Just because something exists does not make it good. Yes, we have been living in this modern environment for decades, even centuries, now. And people continue to become more miserable. We have more than we've ever had in history, so why is anyone unhappy? If we were right, this would be impossible. Despite our material gains, we have clearly made grave mistakes.

Your photo demonstrates what I'm talking about well. It is a picture of a real man, in a real place. But the colors have been adjusted so radically, that he has become simply a part of the texture. All reality of the scene has been destroyed. But in favor of what? What is suggested by the color palette? What is the desired sensation? You want to speak to me about projection? This image is made to match your own projection of alienation, emptiness, change, "progress", of what the future must mean. You cannot tell me this photo is of love, or of peace, or of hope, or any such good quality. It is not insightful--there is no understanding gained by it--it is not useful. If it offers any comfort, it is only the comfort of despair, which offers rest before the work is attempted.

[Anonymous No.13470245]

>>13470212
Lefties; always hates hearing inconvenient truths. Lies are required to prop up leftist fantasies.

[Anonymous No.13470247]

>>13470203
What is your dream?

[Anonymous No.13470251]

>>13470238
All you have posted is a higher class version of the same thing, though.

[Anonymous No.13470265]

>>13470247
Buy a house in the countryside. Travel. Learn languages and musical instruments. Write. Read a ton. Fish. Camp. Grow fruits. Raise dogs. Live peacefully.

[Anonymous No.13470298]

>>13470265
You don't need to be rich to do all that. In fact, pursuing wealth will prevent you from doing any of it. But I am still curious, what is it about these things that appeal to you? Why do you need wealth to pursue them? What does peace mean to you?

[Anonymous No.13470305]

Capitalism didn't kill aesthetics. The industrial society did. An industrial society based on communism would be absolutely devoid of aesthetics or life in general.

[Anonymous No.13470309]

There's always a motte and bailey that goes on in these discussions.
On the right side, the motte is
"Capitalism, in the form of allowing for private ownership and market transactions, is the best economic system."
But they really believe the bailey:
"And any form of government intervention into this should be minimized, ideally to something approximating a night watchman state."
Which describes no first world country today.
On the left, the motte is usually
"Some government regulation and social programs are benefical to society."
But they really believe the bailey
"Our economy should be completely government run."
Which no society is like either.
Centrism is the answer here guys. The answer lies, as it almost always does, in the middle. Your state should have capitalist and socialist elements.

[Anonymous No.13470311]

>>13469481
For some reason breaking bad in particular attracts droves of pseuds calling it mediocre of even outright bad because they think it's cool to hate popular things

[Anonymous No.13470312]

>>13470245
You are hopelessly confused.
Time to put some order in your head.

[Anonymous No.13470313]

>>13465559
Del Noce would agree with you. If you think Marxism or Fascism has a different end though, you need to read him.

[Anonymous No.13470316]

>>13470311
90% of TV production is relatively low quality. Breaking bad isn't much of an exception. I'm sure the story and acting are compelling, but I don't think it makes good use of the medium.

[Anonymous No.13470330]

>>13470201
>by telling you the art you enjoy is terrible.
And you think that is substantial? We could go back and forth saying the same thing to each other ad infinitum and get nowhere. I don't consider that substance.

>>13470238
Same for you. You are not adding anything besides saying that you derive no aesthetic value from these things, therefore they have no aesthetic value period, which is equivalent to saying nothing at all.

>>13470244
>Just because something exists does not make it good.
Just because you find something valueless doesn't mean everyone does.

>And people continue to become more miserable. We have more than we've ever had in history, so why is anyone unhappy?
Well, not everyone has become more miserable. You'd also be hard-pressed to find a time when there was no misery at all.

>But the colors have been adjusted so radically, that he has become simply a part of the texture. All reality of the scene has been destroyed. But in favor of what? What is suggested by the color palette? What is the desired sensation?
Some of the color comes from the scene, perhaps decoratively added for the shot, and were enhanced by post-processing effects. By enhancing the colors that already exist, the photographer enhances the visceral emotions already emanating from the scene, i.e., the emotions produced by the hyper-sensational neon signs and dense juxtaposition of frivolous elements and marketing calligraphy which result in a surrealistic semiotic limbo lying somewhere between tangibility and abstraction, tradition and chaos. And all of this is only made possible by industrialization and computerization, so the scene at the end of the day celebrates these things in a very subtle manner.

>You cannot tell me this photo is of love, or of peace, or of hope, or any such good quality. It is not insightful--there is no understanding gained by it--it is not useful. If it offers any comfort, it is only the comfort of despair, which offers rest before the work is attempted.
I can tell you it is of love, and of peace, and of hope, and insightful, and I wouldn't be lying. Because we are not from the same culture, you and I. One man's trash is another man's treasure, so they say. Your posts are only serving to gatekeep for the values that you possess.

[Anonymous No.13470336]

>>13470316
>I'm sure the story and acting are compelling, but I don't think it makes good use of the medium.
Just about every episode is enthralling so I wouldn't say it doesn't make good use of the episodic format of television programs at all.

[Anonymous No.13470351]

>>13470298
>You don't need to be rich to do all that.
Course you do. How am I going to buy a house without money? How am I going to dedicate the majority of my time to learning and reading if I have to worry about a job? How am I going to travel if I have to worry about money?
>But I am still curious, what is it about these things that appeal to you? Why do you need wealth to pursue them? What does peace mean to you?
Not having to worry about financial problems and dedicating my time to improving myself by learning things and creating art. I'm also not very sociable so I think living in a remote area with a quiet girl would be optimal for me.

[Anonymous No.13470355]

>>13470351
I should also say that the nature of the countryside appeals to me. I could go walking in nature for hours and not get bored. I don't know if it would become mundane if I lived there though.

[Anonymous No.13470361]

>>13470330
>a celebration of technological chaos and semiotic confusion clashing with tradition and human touch is a message of love and peace and hope.
You are a teenager who has learned how certain words can make you seem well read to your friends, but who still lacks enough experience of life to see beyond philosophical abstraction into the reality of life to which it refers.

[Anonymous No.13470378]

>>13470336
Something being episodic is not the medium. The medium is cinema. Most TV shows are crude, from a perspective of cinematic quality.

[Anonymous No.13470390]

>>13470378
>Something being episodic is not the medium. The medium is cinema.
A movie and a TV series share elements but they are a different format and should be judged with that in mind.

[Anonymous No.13470406]

>>13470361
>I don't welcome the aesthetics of it, ergo, you are immature.
Thanks for the substantial contribution to the thread and to the discussion of aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.13470414]

>>13470351
You've created a fantasy, and decided that money will make it real. There are plenty of people who travel without money. Dogs can be cheap. Rural real estate is not very expensive. You can also go to a different country where things are cheaper. You worship money, and prefer not to admit it.

[Anonymous No.13470415]

>>13465600
>You don’t see it? No. You’re too distracted by the tv and films.
Fucking based, my fucking sides holy shit

[Anonymous No.13470427]

>>13470414
The point is to fulfil my dream I need to have passive income or make enough money to live for the rest of my life. I can't be a full-time autodidact if I have to work a 9 to 5.

[Anonymous No.13470430]

>>13470390
There is a great problem in talking about moving images, because it has never received a proper name like painting, which can take in every kind of format and genre and display. When I say cinema in this case, I mean moving image. It's true a theatrical experience and a smaller screen offer a different experience, and that should be borne in mind. However, I still mean what I said--most TV makes poor use of the medium, which is moving images--also called cinema. TV products are generally very cheap, even on top shows, and they are largely shot for efficiency of story telling, than for artistic value. 90% of TV is the cinematic equivalent of pulp. So maybe Breaking Bad is on the same level as The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, but that is still only a mediocre thing in the grander scheme.

[Anonymous No.13470441]

>>13470427
So your real dream is to not work. Having met many people who do not have to work, they are not happy. Meaning is only found in labor.

[Anonymous No.13470445]

>>13470406
You welcome, but it's pretty frustrating to carry on such a one sided conversation. Maybe if you contributed something, more could have been said.

[Anonymous No.13470448]

>>13470430
>TV products are generally very cheap, even on top shows, and they are largely shot for efficiency of story telling, than for artistic value. 90% of TV is the cinematic equivalent of pulp.
Why is story telling and artistic value separate? Also, what is and isn't story telling in cinema, aka the moving image medium?

[Anonymous No.13470464]

>>13470445
I've contributed a lot to the thread, silly. You seem to have a habit of dismissing the existence of things when you don't morally agree with them.

[Anonymous No.13470497]

>>13470448
Because a story exists regardless of how it is told. The medium really has nothing to do with a high school chemistry teacher who turns to making meth to pay for his cancer treatment. The medium, by itself, does not have any particular effect on the story's commentary on morality and responsibility. In TV, stories are mostly told in a very basic pointing--the camera points at one thing, then another, then another, and so on, always and in a somewhat even pace developing the story one image at a time. The same thing could almost be done as a slideshow, except that it can only hold people's attention if there is superfluous movement and sound. They don't make much use of camera movements, or even of character movements. Consider the last episode of Game of Thrones--regular TV audiences were blown away by the matching of Danaerys with the Dragon's wings. They were strongly effected by the relatively weak fascistic image of her army and her speech. These, they thought, were the height of cinema. While it's true, this is above average for TV, it is still pretty crude. Great art has not only good content, but has also great form. Great form with bad content is evil. Good content with bad form still has some good to it, but is not worth studying beyond the point which the individual finds it morally edifying.

[Anonymous No.13470503]

>>13470464
>no u

[Anonymous No.13470504]

>>13470441
>So your real dream is to not work.
My work would be teaching myself languages, reading, writing, playing instruments, and exploring the world.

[Anonymous No.13470515]

>>13470464
A few years ago, I was walking down Melrose in LA when I noticed a crowd of physically ugly, poorly dressed people milling in front of a store. I of course checked it out, and discovered they were all there for a gallery opening — the art in question being large My Little Pony figurines dressed up, covered in paint and glitter, adorned with feathers, etc. These certainly had an aesthetic but in the end were really just commercialized trash. Still, good for the bronies who like that sort of thing.

Recently I’ve been forced to conclude that weebs are even lower than bronies on the evolutionary scale. Manga and anime are their calling cards; both have an aesthetic but in the end they’re really just commercialized trash. Still, good for you that you like that sort of thing.

[Anonymous No.13470536]

>>13470504
>Learn languages
Become an interpreter.

>Reading
A lot of that is done in the process of becoming a teacher, and you can read more things based on what you teach to improve your teaching abilities. Another option is to become an audiobook reader.

>Writing
Become a writer.

>Play instruments
Try making your own music, or do covers. Just like you can self-publish books on Amazon, I had also seen something for 'self-publishing' music. You could look into that.

>Explore the world
Become a journalist, or more specifically you could try to become a travel journalist in which you share experiences from other nations and give your own insight. Another option is Military. Another option is pilot or steward.

There, you have multiple avenues from which you can make money from your interests and goals. Have at it, enjoy life your way and accidentally contribute to society while you're at it. With the internet, there's never been a better time to become an entrepreneur. I've already made thousands from it.

[Anonymous No.13470541]

>>13470515
>Recently I’ve been forced to conclude that weebs are even lower than bronies on the evolutionary scale.
If this isn't bait, I don't know what is.

[Anonymous No.13470550]

>>13470536
>I've already made thousands from it.
What do you do?

[Anonymous No.13470553]

>>13470541
Not bait, truth. Weebs IMHO seem far more delusional (and far more vocal about their delusions) than bronies.

[Anonymous No.13470593]

>>13470497
>Because a story exists regardless of how it is told. The medium really has nothing to do with a high school chemistry teacher who turns to making meth to pay for his cancer treatment. The medium, by itself, does not have any particular effect on the story's commentary on morality and responsibility.
My problem with this evaluation is that you start by admitting that a story is always told regardless of the medium, but then say "the medium, by itself" when such a thing isn't fathomable when there is always a story being told by any medium. The story is inseparable from our experience of any medium; we will inevitably be told a story through it. As a result of this, I can't fathom a purpose to a medium besides to tell a story, any medium at all. A medium is a form of communication and a story is always what communication delivers. So, in a sense, we could and even should evaluate all mediums and all works based on two things:

1. how well they use the medium to tell a story (the form); and
2. how good of a story is told by it (the content).

So, how do modern uses of cinema not use the medium well to tell stories, and why do you only seem to value more abstract stories, such as ones told by black and white films?

[Anonymous No.13470616]

>>13470553
You'd have to define what a weeb is. Based on my understanding of the term, I'm not a weeb. I lack a blind appreciation for everything produced by Japan and only appreciate the aesthetics of certain Japanese individuals. The majority of individuals whose works I appreciate aren't Japanese either.

[Anonymous No.13470635]

>>13469870

[Anonymous No.13470641]

>>13470635
Pretty based actually

[Anonymous No.13470709]

>>13470593
A story is not the only possible content of any medium. In fact, most mediums struggle to convey story at all. Cinema can easily exist without story, but storytelling is the most marketable use for cinema. But, historically, the greatest works of art, though they often contain story, are typically concerned with more than the story. In great novels, the story itself is usually only a style for delivering more meaningful content. What's more, even a simple and tired story can be used to make beautiful and compelling art. Consider the first season of Stranger Things for example. The story itself was extremely basic, with few variations from what is normally cliche. This was even one of the complaints about it. However, the film making itself, the cinematic quality was relatively very high, (I'm not calling it great, just relatively good). In this, it became very compelling. It really had very little to do with story.

[Anonymous No.13470761]

Because we all know how great literature and the arts are in Communist regimes.

[Anonymous No.13470766]

>>13470616
Your examples are very cartoon-ish and their manufacturers are certainly influenced by weebware, AKA manga/anime.

[Anonymous No.13470779]

It was modernity, fuck leftists are cowards with this shit except some of the based ones way back when. The word REACTIONARY has spooked you retards forever. Modern socialism wont make it better.

[Anonymous No.13470792]

>>13470616
But an essential element of what you like in these images is their "exotic" character. After all, these are images of mundane events, ordinary people doing ordinary things. The extreme, and amateur color editing only works and makes sense if the subject matter is seen as something extreme and alien in the first place.

[Anonymous No.13470806]

>>13470761
>Because we all know how great literature and the arts are in Communist regimes
There were some fairly interesting things being done in the USSR in the 1920’s but Stalin put a stop to them. Also, if you’re a fan of propaganda posters (capitalism wins, these are highly collectible and often quite valuable) you have to admit the commies do a great job.

[Anonymous No.13470824]

>>13470792
The image in the post you’re replying to is pretty much a rip-off of this.

[Anonymous No.13470837]

>>13470824
Not even close.

[Anonymous No.13470840]

>>13470553
>truth
>IMHO
Jokes aside, I feel like I'm coming to a similar conclusion about the delusional bit and would like to hear a little more on what led you to form such an opinion, other than the obvious.

[Anonymous No.13470854]

>>13465943
photography is still alive tho

[Anonymous No.13470877]

>>13469870
>Just check some of these photographers, for example:
>https://twitter.com/liamwong
>https://twitter.com/noealz
>https://twitter.com/cbje_tokyo
>https://twitter.com/UrbanFoxxxx
>https://twitter.com/AestheticsJapan
lmao fucking pleb normalfaggot reddit shit

[Anonymous No.13470903]

>>13469994
>The customer dictates the market, because customers buy what they want, what they view as more valuable than the hard-earned money in their pocket, so by definition a business venture only succeeds if they provide something the customers deem to be of sufficient value
disgusting, do you realize we're talking about art?

[Anonymous No.13470920]

>>13465585
>You're also ignoring the fact that we are in the golden era for TV and film

How?

[Anonymous No.13470929]

>>13466020
thanks for the recs gonna watch these whilst i eat its always a bitch to find recs

[Anonymous No.13470943]

>>13470008
What films do lol

[Anonymous No.13470950]

>>13470903
The customer determines what is art always

[Anonymous No.13470957]

>>13470903
He's right that this is generally and ordinarily how capitalism works. But even in the secular stage, it relies on the knowledge and wisdom of the customer. And given that the best way to make a lot of money is to take a thin margin on many products, it appeals to the lowest common denominator. And this is the problem with light conservatives and libertarians. They understand the mechanism of the market, but they don't understand humanity.

[Anonymous No.13470958]

>>13470003
>1%.

That's 70 million people, so about the size of the UK. Hardly an 'elite'

[Anonymous No.13470959]

>>13470877
If the Mona Lisa were painted today you would call it pleb tier. Anything that's modern and popular is bad to you, and you judge all art from this standpoint.

[Anonymous No.13470964]

>>13470943
Many. There used to be more. But each year gets worse.

[Anonymous No.13470976]

>>13470958
>70 million
>out of 7 billion
It is elite. It's also why mass immigration is a terrible idea. It does absolutely nothing. We also see that the money isn't really the issue. The only thing that matters is social relationships.

[Anonymous No.13470994]

>>13470837
That you don’t see it speaks volumes about your understanding of art.
>>13470840
>other than the obvious
The obvious is so overwhelming with them there’s no point in searching for nuances. They could step in dog shit and, as long as it was on the streets of Tokyo, twist that into proof of the authenticity and culture of Japan and the corresponding lack of same in whatever “shithole” first-world country they occupy.

[Anonymous No.13471000]

>>13470959
those hacks are just following shitty trends for likes and followers
at least post some fine art and contemporary photographers who are actually making good work

[Anonymous No.13471006]

>>13470976
It's not that it's 'elite', it's that the billion chinks pajeets and africans live like shit because they decided to breed too much. nobody is pro mass immigration, only the establishment

[Anonymous No.13471013]

>>13470766
You still have to define the term if you want to apply it to me effectively given what I've told you.

>>13470792
>But an essential element of what you like in these images is their "exotic" character.
Not really. They don't feel exotic to me. Some of them are a bit surreal, but that's not related to their aesthetics. Aesthetics is about beauty and they are beautiful images to me. I feel a combination of nostalgia, wonder, curiosity, awe, admiration, and self-divination through them.

[Anonymous No.13471037]

>>13471013
Does this photo invoke any of those emotions?

[Anonymous No.13471061]

>>13471037
Nope.

[Anonymous No.13471078]

>>13471061
>Nope.
t. visually illiterate

[Anonymous No.13471082]

>>13470959
except the gioconda was permanently displayed to the public only after the 1800

[Anonymous No.13471084]

>>13471061
Weird. I feel all those emotions looking at it, especially the blur near the trees on the right. I guess it truly does depend on the observer.

[Anonymous No.13471085]

>>13470550
Self-publish books, still working towards traditional publishing, but most of the money comes from writing on Fiverr. Ghostwriting (sometimes non-sexual) and writing custom erotica for people with particular interests. I've made thousands of dollars from writing over the course of basically 28 months. Not enough to live off of, since it's not in the tens of thousands, but none the less it's damn good supplementary income. Who's going to turn down thousands of dollars just for doing something that is pretty enjoyable?

[Anonymous No.13471098]

>>13470958
None the less, anyone making over roughly $35,000 USD per year are making more money than the other 99% of the planet. They are the world's 1%, and should be grateful for what they have.

[Anonymous No.13471104]

>>13471085
wish i could pay someone to write for me

[Anonymous No.13471127]

>>13471098
That's like saying you should be grateful for owning a toliet, because some pajeet lacks it.

What you should be grateful for in this world is the inventors and geniuses who work from their own soul, not becuse they make upwards of '$35,000" per year but selflessly devout themselves to a cause that doesn't usually benefit them.

[Anonymous No.13471137]

>>13470958
None the less, anyone making over roughly $35,000 USD per year are making more money than the other 99% of the planet. They are the world's 1%, and should be grateful for what they have.

>>13470976
Mass-immigration is a terrible idea for many reasons, and the thing is, if it's not dealt with now, it will probably be our children and children's children who suffer the most. They won't be happy with us either; they can look back to the pre-2015 West, at how statistics changed so drastically, and thus witness how the modern left have sold them out of what our ancestors had built. What we are entitled to and should strive to earn, and what our children and children's children are entitled to and should strive to earn. We'll see how things go, but the problem must be dealt with. The issue of racial IQ should have been something to consider, if any actual sensible consideration had taken place at all before Germany destroyed Europe for the 3rd time in a century. Bloody Angela Merkel... Islam is not compatible with the West. Reformation is needed, but they tend to kill their bloody reformists... barbarians.

[Anonymous No.13471147]

>>13471104
You can find someone on Fiverr. Lots of writers, though not all of them are good. Aim for someone with lots of 5 star reviews.

[Anonymous No.13471163]

>>13471000
Feel free to post them yourself.

[Anonymous No.13471171]

>>13471013
>>13471037
>>13471084
What you are describing is the sensation of alienation. Most people confuse it with the sublime. The reason it has mixed reactions is because you're not actually looking at the photo itself, but instead trying to emotionally turn away. Because the object is alien and impenetrable and ultimately empty, you begin to grab at whatever emotions you can. You imprint on it whatever it can hold, which is very little. Hence, these vague descriptions, which really have very little to do with any of the content. The primary driver is simply the color scheme and textures. You are responding to the suggestion of meaning without any real interaction or understanding.

[Anonymous No.13471175]

>>13471147
Not to sound arrogant but I don't think someone is capable of writing my ideas in that sort of capitalist space. I'd need to really talk to the guy to get it right. I'm not really looking for someone to write a short story about my dog schnitzel' and I feel like fiverr would be full of those types.

[Anonymous No.13471183]

>>13470994
>x is just the z of y!

[Anonymous No.13471198]

>>13470441
arbeit macht frei, bruder

[Anonymous No.13471204]

>>13471198
Jedem das seine.

[Anonymous No.13471210]

>>13471171
>What you are describing is the sensation of alienation. Most people confuse it with the sublime.
I'm not confusing the two at all.

>The reason it has mixed reactions is because you're not actually looking at the photo itself, but instead trying to emotionally turn away. Because the object is alien and impenetrable and ultimately empty, you begin to grab at whatever emotions you can. You imprint on it whatever it can hold, which is very little.
Every artistic work has "mixed reactions" when you introduce it to multiple vastly different cultural groups. What you're describing is your own experience and not everyone's.

[Anonymous No.13471215]

>>13471183

[Anonymous No.13471217]

>>13465585
Except poverty in Africa is largely capitalism's fault

[Anonymous No.13471218]

>>13470957
adam smith was the first and the last c*pitalist to understand humanity. why cant they be more like him, bros?

[Anonymous No.13471225]

>>13471171
The substance in itself is the imprint of what feels transcendent, yet here it is, unable to fully grasp it's Form, it hides away in these photos. It's the soul of the photo, you can't just look at the 'colour and textures'. These photos remind me vividly of walking through a street and feeling the divine absurdity and feeling of being thrown in this world contra with the illusive and aliennated reality that I also feel. Only the most unique sets of eyes can look at a tree and see the divine. I could even go as far to start debating optics and cameras but really, if someone doesn't see it then that's okay, it really a lack of soul that permeates that kind of decision making. Like when you show someone who only listens to 'happy music' and dances like a 6 year old a sad folk tune, they tell you to turn it off because they don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.13471243]

>>13471210
>What you're describing is your own experience and not everyone's
And you’re not? Good for you that you like the stuff you’re posting, but it’s all simple, cartoon-ish, requires little skill to produce, and is really derivative.

[Anonymous No.13471252]

>>13471217
Because there was no poverty in Africa prior to the arrival of Europeans?

[Anonymous No.13471267]

>>13471243
>it’s all simple
Everything is simple when you understand it.

>cartoon-ish
I don't know what this means. I'm guessing you don't like garish things.

>requires little skill to produce
Like my other comment, everything requires little skill to produce when you understand it, and have practiced.

>derivative
Nothing is new under the sun.

[Anonymous No.13471334]

>>13471210
>I feel wonder, awe, curiosity,
>But also nostalgia, and self-divination
---
>I feel the sublime
>But it is not the sublime
--
>everything is subjective
>that's how I know you're wrong

[Anonymous No.13471344]

>>13471225
>I could start debating optics and cameras
Please do. I am sure it will be just as profound and insightful as your artistic analysis.

[Anonymous No.13471358]

>>13471267
>everything takes little skill to produce when you understand it and have practiced it
So, in other words, once you have worked hard to develop a skill, it is not a skill anymore, so things which take less effort, understanding, and practice are, in fact, equally skillful. Well done.

[Anonymous No.13471367]

>>13470994
Oh yeah there's definitely at least a few people out there who'd be saying nonsensical shit like that. Me personally, I've just been somewhat obsessed with a fictional character for around 3 years but I try not to make outlandish claims. I wonder how long that'll last before I join the other outspoken lunatics. Feels like an inevitability.

[Anonymous No.13471371]

>>13471334
Note that I never said you're wrong for having different taste. You're just wrong for having thought that my taste is outside the realm of aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.13471382]

>>13471267
>Everything is simple when you understand it.
Nonsense.
>I'm guessing you don't like garish things.
There’s no need to gild the lily; gilding is only used when there’s nothing of value underneath
>everything requires little skill to produce when you understand it, and have practiced.
Nonsense.
>Nothing is new under the sun
Nonsense.

Well, at least you admit that the stuff you’ve been posting is simple, garish, amateurish, and uncreative, so there’s a start.

[Anonymous No.13471393]

>>13471163
here are some of fine art and contemporary photogs on top of my head
Jeff Wall
Ren Hang
Sonja Braas
Rinko Kawauchi
Todd Hido
Yoshiyuki Okuyama
Rala Choi
Hiroshi Sugimoto
Edward Burtynsky
Michael Ackerman

[Anonymous No.13471411]

>>13471367
>Me personally, I've just been somewhat obsessed with a fictional character for around 3 years but I try not to make outlandish claims. I wonder how long that'll last before I join the other outspoken lunatics.
Whatever makes you happy, anon. The only advice I can offer is don’t let that shit spill over into your real life.

[Anonymous No.13471414]

>>13471371
No, I started by acknowledging quite clearly that your opinions are aesthetic, but they're ignorant. You clearly have some consideration and schema for judging beauty, but it is poorly formed and weak. In other words, yes you have a taste, but it is bad taste.

[Anonymous No.13471422]

>>13471252
Of course there was. But post-colonial era poorness could have easily been avoided.

[Anonymous No.13471424]

>>13471411
>whatever makes you happy
Terrible advice. There is no more certain way to be miserable.

[Anonymous No.13471434]

>>13471422
Avoided, maybe. Easily avoided, not at all. After all, almost every thing you criticize about colonialism was an attempt to build up the necessary social structures for the indigenous people to not be poor (United States excluded). I think you vastly underestimate how difficult it is to build up a civilization, as did the colonizers.

[Anonymous No.13471443]

>>13471358
Does not every endeavor require an equal amount of skill from God? What would be harder or easier for an omnipotent being?

[Anonymous No.13471451]

>>13471137
>Mass-immigration is a terrible idea for many reasons,
Mass immigration is not an idea, good or bad. It is the logic of the Capital to have spare labor. Migrants are Capitalism reserve army. I'm just finishing Das Kapital vol.1, it's written plain and simple.
Both alt-right and SJW leftists don't understand this. The firsts are cucks because they think that they can fight something impossible to stop, the second mongoloids, because they think they are little Che Guevaras, defending the weak, when they are just the little bitches of the Capital, working in it's interest.

[Anonymous No.13471458]

>>13471393
>fine art and contemporary photogs
There’s an oxymoron for you. Nothing fine art about it — photography is low art.
>>13471422
>post-colonial era poorness could have easily been avoided
In Africa? I don’t see how. Any intervention in it would produce an unwelcome outcome.
>>13471424
Well, it beats doing things that make you unhappy.

[Anonymous No.13471487]

>>13471443
No, it does not. All things are not equal. Some things are easier, and some harder. It might be just as easy for God to give you great skill as little skill, but that doesn't change how much skill you have or how much effort will be required of you.

[Anonymous No.13471495]

>>13471458
>photography is low art.
The biggest problem with contemporary fine art isn't that it's actually low art, but that no one reads anything which explains how it's fine art.

[Anonymous No.13471500]

>>13471458
>There’s an oxymoron for you. Nothing fine art about it — photography is low art.
lol how much do you know about photography?

[Anonymous No.13471505]

>>13471458
It doesn't. Doing things which you do not enjoy for the benefit they bring, and over time learning to find satisfaction in it is perhaps the most reliable path to both earthly success and earthly satisfaction.

[Anonymous No.13471521]

>>13471495
If you cannot see that it is beautiful, how can you say that it is beautiful? If you must change all your ideas, you have not changed the object, but instead tortured your sense of beauty.

[Anonymous No.13471529]

>>13471495
>no one reads anything which explains how it's fine art
Knowing theory isn't requisite for understanding/appreciating/producing fine art

[Anonymous No.13471531]

>>13471521
I see. The problem here is that you haven't philosophically developed past the Enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.13471554]

>>13471529
If you fail to see how contemporary fine art is fine art, then you need to read more on modern theory.

[Anonymous No.13471574]

>>13471495
>no one reads anything which explains how it's fine art
Because the essays, articles, etc. that try to justify this viewpoint are preaching to the choir?
>>13471500
>how much do you know about photography?
Low art is for the masses, accessible and easily comprehended — photography certainly qualifies.
>>13471505
If they bring benefits, sure. But let’s face facts — doing things that you don’t like to do when they don’t bring benefits (or the benefits aren’t worthwhile) is a direct route to mental illness.

[Anonymous No.13471591]

>>13471574
>Because the essays, articles, etc. that try to justify this viewpoint are preaching to the choir?
It wouldn't be if you're someone who thinks fine art doesn't exist in modern forms of art.

[Anonymous No.13471616]

>>13471574
>Low art is for the masses, accessible and easily comprehended — photography certainly qualifies.
yeah just like literature

[Anonymous No.13471626]

>>13471531
>the enlightenment and its offspring are progress
The problem here is you have no foundation for what you believe, so you come with arguments to justify whatever it is you are doing or feeling.

[Anonymous No.13471642]

>>13471574
>direct route to mental illness
Not really. Labor is unavoidable. Pain and suffering are unavoidable. Living life in a transactional manner is doing you serious harm. The only way to know peace is to come to terms the the limitations of life.

[Anonymous No.13471656]

>>13465695
me on the right

[Anonymous No.13471662]

>>13471626
Your education never went further than thinkers from several centuries back. You can't even grasp the craftsmanship of the photographer, yet you have the gall to pass judgment on it like your word is the gospel. C'mon bro.

[Anonymous No.13471704]

>>13471662
I am a photographer.

[Anonymous No.13471709]

>>13471411
It has given me more incentive to question myself and try to figure out how and why it came about. Not sure I'd say it makes me happy, but I do try to think of it as a possible positive instead of stopping at the "my desires can and will never be fulfilled and nothing can make up for that sorrow" stage that understandably hurts a lot of people in a similar position.
>>13471424
I've always described it as the purest form of masochism. It's probably self-inflicted too, even though it definitely feels like it isn't.

[Anonymous No.13471711]

>>13471451
If the migrants actually all worked, then perhaps you'd be onto something, but by and large the outcome of mass-migration is A LOT more people on welfare, possibly using up healthcare resources when they've never paid into the program via a history of tax-paying, and there's even some who refuse to integrate at all. No interest in learning the language, the culture, or anything like that. It's a drain. Vetted LEGAL immigration benefits a nation because it allows selection for the best possible candidates who already have a grasp of the language, some sort of skill that is useful, and ideally some degree of love for the nation they're trying to get into.

I also don't think you know what a 'cuck' actually is, though if you're reading Das Kapital and in a favourable light then I would understand it if you've heard the word in your direction before.

Another issue of 'spare labour', in terms of low-skill workers, it decreases average wages because they'll happily work for the absolute minimum wage possible and likely won't try to bargain for a higher starting wage at all. So, let's say that the minimum wage was hightened? Well the employers are suddenly paying a rather high price per employee, so why risk hiring some foreigner who will probably not be anywhere near as good and convenient as a local? Leave them to sub-minimum-wage under-the-counter non-taxed employment? I see, so basically a serf class of brown people who will do menial labour, underpay, and possibly in poor conditions (after all they wouldn't have the rights of a legitimate worker). Either that or they just go on welfare and are thus a total drain on the economy.

It just doesn't work, and I think it would be very foolish to attempt to blame it on Capitalism. I mean, do you think by Trump stopping the mass-migration occurring on the southern border is going to HURT the US economy? Of course not! The economy is getting better and better and better, wages are rising, unemployment is at various record lows! A mass-deportation of illegals would mean more jobs opened, an increase in the need for workers resulting in wages increasing even higher to entice people to drop off a resume. It would also result in fewer people on welfare and food stamps as well as fewer hospital resources being used up and less of a strain on any food banks, if America has those. Food banks in Germany were rapidly running out of food around 2016-17 as I recall and often fights broke out in the line-ups.

No, once that border is secure, illegals are kept out as much as possible, and steadily deported as they're found... everything in America is going to get better, including the economy, because mass-migration HURTS economies and doesn't HELP them.

[Anonymous No.13471713]

>>13471704
A retarded one whose work sucks ass, assuming you aren't bullshitting.

[Anonymous No.13471739]

>>13471704
then you're a normalfaggot one who have very little understanding of a massive art medium

[Anonymous No.13471763]

>>13471713
I'm not, and what I've done commercially isn't that great. Ironically, my personal work from college on has been extremely post modern. At this point, I have not tried to enter it anywhere for political and financial reasons. I'm not going to post it here either. I will say that some of my greater influences have been Lee Friedlander and Robert Smithson, but I don't really want to get any more specific than that.

[Anonymous No.13471769]

>>13471739
>You can't dislike it if you understand it
I'm sure you're a real expert.

[Anonymous No.13471773]

>>13471591
> if you're someone who thinks fine art doesn't exist in modern forms of art
I never said that. Of course fine art still exists, though it’s swimming in a sea of low art, kitsch, and downright trash.
>>13471616
>just like literature
Low quality bait
>>13471642
>Living life in a transactional manner
There’s plenty of unhappiness to be found outside the marketplace.
>>13471709
It’s internal to you; how you perceive it is completely up to you. As long as you have control over it, and not it over you — i.e. keep it from spilling over into your real life — then there shouldn’t be any problem.

[Anonymous No.13471784]

>>13471773
I wasn't talking about the marketplace.

[Anonymous No.13471785]

>>13471574
>Low art is for the masses, accessible and easily comprehended — photography certainly qualifies.
>it's art as long as it makes me feel exceptional
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.13471800]

>>13471769
>Low art is for the masses, accessible and easily comprehended — photography certainly qualifies.
damn how /p/ will ever recover from this
you are a true intellectual bro

[Anonymous No.13471806]

>>13471785
“For the masses, accessible, and easily comprehended” is the definition of low art. Sorry that you have a problem with that. The rest of your post is of course childish projection.

[Anonymous No.13471813]

>>13471806
>“For the masses, accessible, and easily comprehended” is the definition of low art.
Well whoever coined it was a hipster, obviously.

[Anonymous No.13471816]

>>13471800
Good thing that's not my argument.

[Anonymous No.13471820]

>>13471773
>Low quality bait
yeah your bait was actually low quality thanks for acknowledging that

[Anonymous No.13471834]

>>13471711
Mass migration is no financed by private Capital, but by taxes. Wage slaves finance their own replacement, and their own health care and public services for that matter.
The Capital doesn't have to pay a dime to finance immigration welfare.
However, it benefits from what you've said pretty accurately: decrease average wages.

The Capital doesn't care if it fucks the country. It's for short term profit anyway. See what happened in Detroit. Once the country is fucked, the Capital would already have moved elsewhere. Asia most likely.

About Trump, he hasn't done shit to stop mass migration, and won't do shit, except petty symbols (a small wall), or words. Best case scenario, immigration will slightly decrease, but the levels are already sky high, so it won't change anything.

[Anonymous No.13471835]

>>13471816
shits happens
also you have very reddit taste, kill yourself my faggot

[Anonymous No.13471839]

>>13471813
I don’t think low art is exclusively a hipster phenomenon, but they do revel in it (especially its kitsch aspects), don’t they?
>>13471820
No u

[Anonymous No.13471858]

>>13471835
Friedlander and Smithson? If you were talking spiral jetty, probably, but I'm more interested in his writing and photography. Also, just because something is well known, doesn't make it bad. /p/ is shit, so I'm not sure what you're expecting good photographic taste to be.

[Anonymous No.13471861]

>>13471839
"low art" is a hipster term because the weight of "high" and "low" is being measured by its accessibility rather than its craftsmanship or capacity for deep engagement. It doesn't follow that being accessible would make a work poorly crafted or shallow. The irony of conflating accessibility with quality is that anyone who applies the terms "high art" or "low art" in this way are actually misinterpreting art, meaning they are not even properly accessing the works which they are calling highly accessible. If they can't even access these highly accessible works, how dumb are these people (i.e. you)?

[Anonymous No.13471882]

>>13471861
There is folk art and there is fine art. They should be understood as nothing more than the styles and craft of the general populous as compared to the styles and craft developed discerning audiences, which are generally upper class, because they are the only ones with the time, resources, and knowledge to treat it so seriously. Fine art today has been eviscerated by abstraction and conceptualization, wherein the actual art itself is devoid of meaning, and it has become only a financial game driven by esoteric and largely nihilistic writing and conversation. Conversely, Folk Art in the west has been almost entirely consumed by commercialization, and there is today almost no organic creation, which is the primary driver and source of quality in folk art to begin with.

[Anonymous No.13471898]

>>13471393
Those are some nice reccs, thanks. I really like Kawauchi, Hido and Okuyama on quick glance but will dive into all of them more.

[Anonymous No.13471913]

>>13471711
muh border patrol isn't going to bring back the means of production from china. enjoy your american social credit score.

[Anonymous No.13471915]

>>13471217
its cause they dumb

[Anonymous No.13471924]

>>13471861
>how dumb are these people (i.e. you)?
Dumber than some, not as dumb as others. Of course, I’m placing you in the latter category.

The concept of low art has been around for hundreds of years; that hipsters currently revel in it is neither here nor there. Craftsmanship, engagement, etc. have nothing to do with the definition of low art, and the only person here conflating accessibility with quality (or the lack thereof) is you. Lastly, your idea that artwork can be “improperly” accessed is elitist pedantry.

[Anonymous No.13471928]

>>13471858
lee was full of shit tho he leeched Japanese street and few other newyork school photogs.
>/p/ is shit
/p/ was really good in the past. but even now you can good stuff here and there.
>I'm not sure what you're expecting good photographic taste to be
more board than one shithead

[Anonymous No.13471942]

>>13471393
>>13471898
Those are some good ones. You should also check out Gregory Crewdson, Larry Sultan, and Phillip-Lorca di Corcia. For a more true and meaningful insight into alienation, also check out Joan Fontcuberta

[Anonymous No.13471946]

>>13465559
(((Capitalism)))

[Anonymous No.13471954]

>>13471924
>that hipsters currently revel in it is neither here nor there.
>currently
They have reveled in it since its inception, because it was invented by a hipster who improperly conflated accessibility with artistic excellence, because he was a hipster. Does putting a classical fine art painting on display for the public to attend and see for free suddenly make it not fine art? If so, you are a hipster and you evaluate art by hipster standards.

>Lastly, your idea that artwork can be “improperly” accessed is elitist pedantry.
That's rich coming the guy using terms like "low art" and "fine art." But, you have a point there, perhaps made by accident, which is that art cannot really be accessed improperly, since there's no such thing as a "wrong" perspective, but from where I stand, you are still wrong, and nothing will change that.

[Anonymous No.13471956]

>>13471928
No, /p/ is pretty shit. The secret is that every board is pretty shit; it's all a bunch of amateurs and outsiders acting like their some maligned genius. We tend to fall into the boards where our level of ignorance is best matched. Lee wasn't full of shit, and he's got a fair amount of interesting stuff well beyond his "street" photography. I get the knee-jerk reaction against him, and again, my aesthetic philosophy is far more extreme than yours. I'm not looking at this stuff because I think it's good, but to learn; I think almost all contemporary photography has been destructive and degenerative, but you cannot say it was done without skill or understanding.

[Anonymous No.13471989]

>>13471898
you're welcome anon
>I really like Kawauchi, Hido and Okuyama
so you like dreamy color, checkout Rika Noguchi and Sarah Moon also

>>13471942
i am not that much into staged photogs other than jeff wall but good reccs.
>alienation
daido moriyama
francesca woodman
takuma nakahira
olivier pin fat

[Anonymous No.13471999]

>>13471956
>he's got a fair amount of interesting stuff well beyond his "street" photography
>https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/lee-friedlanders-intimate-portraits-of-his-wife-through-sixty-years-of-marriage
yeah dude he fucking mogged the environmental portraiture so fucking hard, how this madman actually done this.

>I'm not looking at this stuff because I think it's good, but to learn
then stop learning from hacks
>I think almost all contemporary photography has been destructive and degenerative
>all
okay bro

[Anonymous No.13472005]

>>13471773
>It’s internal to you; how you perceive it is completely up to you.
Yeah I completely agree with that. As for the "spilling over into your real life" part, I wouldn't mind talking about it with a good friend but things like merchandise, figures, posters, physical porn, t-shirts and what have you always seemed excessive and unnecessary to me so no issues there.

[Anonymous No.13472013]

>>13471954
Again, the distinction between high and low art has been around for centuries. Why you cling so tenaciously to the misconception that it’s a recent invention by hipsters is beyond me. Thanks anyway for your agreement that your idea that art can be “improperly” accessed was rather stupid.

[Anonymous No.13472014]

>>13471834
Your use and capitalization of the word 'capital' is rather strange, if this is how Marx spoke of 'capital', I think I'll have to read his books to better understand the concepts you're trying to get across. It's not making any sense to me, none at all. Strange though, how so many in midwest America are Republican, right-wing, against illegal migration, and thus voting for the party who stands to deal with the problem of illegal immigration rather than the party looking to give it welfare and healthcare and even an attempt at legislation that would give people the opportunity not to work if they simply didn't want to.

If the goal was ultimately to push down wages to improve the bottom line, wouldn't the farmers want the whole 'decreased wages' bit as well? As mentioned however, it's for illegal jobs that are off the books thus under minimum wage. For BIG companies who hire LOTS of people, all legit and thus must be minimum wage, they need to legislate for the decrease of minimum wage, and it's those BIG companies that allegedly have so much influence in politics to try and improve their business... but the Democrats fight for HIGHER minimum wage AND mass-migration. It's counter-intuitive, and only making it MORE difficult for employers to consider hiring someone who might not even have a full grasp of the language. Why? If you're forced to pay a high minimum wage, bloody well go for the absolute best and most glowing option possible. With a low minimum wage, if they think a foreigner could manage the job, then go for the foreigner since they'll likely be perfectly happy with whatever the low minimum wage is.

Too much that's counter-intuitive and illogical, I also don't know what you mean by "wage slaves finance their own replacement", and I don't understand "the Capital doesn't have to pay a dime to finance immigration welfare."

As for Trump, we disagree. I think Trump is doing a fantastic job with his travel bans, the wall (which already has sections built by the Trump wall GoFundMe that I've personally donated to), and soon, mass-deportations. Not to mention the detention centers, holding the illegals until they're processed instead of letting them enter the country to ignore their court date.

[Anonymous No.13472025]

>>13471913
I don't understand what you mean. Also, I'm not American, and there'll never be a 'social credit score' under Trump. He actually loves America and freedom and Capitalism, rightly so. It's something the Democrats fundamentally oppose at every level right now.

[Anonymous No.13472026]

>>13472013
I'm not saying it's a recent invention.

[Anonymous No.13472047]

>>13471999
Understanding this photograph helps a lot in understanding photography. Friedlander is exceptionally cynical, sarcastic, and ironic at times, but he isn't a hack, not more than almost any aging photographer. I'd love to know who you consider to not be a hack.
https://i0.wp.com/fraenkelgallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LF-972-31.jpg?resize=563%2C570&ssl=1

[Anonymous No.13472057]

>>13471989
You might also like Thomas Demand

[Anonymous No.13472082]

>>13469444
>Have you ever been to China? No? I have, its pretty shit.
Inside or outside of Hong Kong? Also, where in Hong Kong?

[Anonymous No.13472104]

>>13472047
>I'd love to know who you consider to not be a hack.
ken rockwell

>>13472057
thanks for the recc

[Anonymous No.13472218]

>>13472014
Mass migration dump wages even if it's legal. It's not only the poor illegal migrant who will beg for a job, but also the sheer number of surnumerary workers, even legal migrants, who puts the Capitalist class in a position of strength when it is time to discuss the wages. "if you don't do the job for this price, 10 others will take it". Also, a considerable amount of foreign workers, even legal ones, help to prevent strikes, since if the local workers want to do a strike, the Capitalist class will just have to hire the surnumerary foreign workers to do the job and break the strike. Even as a preventive measure, to prevent the strike before it even happens. First generation migrants are less prone to class struggle than locals. The Capitalist class knows that.

>I also don't know what you mean by "wage slaves finance their own replacement

Their pay taxes so the State can welcome foreign workers with their own money they just paid with the taxes they paid :s, accomodate them, give them welfare. Like what happened in Germany in 2015 (and still happening of course).

>"the Capital doesn't have to pay a dime to finance immigration welfare."

Big companies don't pay shit as taxes. Working class pays between 30% to 50% of their salary as taxes. It's those taxes who goes into the pocket of the foreign workers as welfare and accommodation in western europa.

Democrats don't fight for higher wage. It's just theatre.
About minimum wage, it is possible that minimum wage actually lower wages, because every employer tend to give you a wage close to the minimum wage. A few years back, the Swiss people rejected by referendum a proposal about a minimum wage, since it could have, as a side effect, lowered wages. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-27459178

The more available workers there is on the workforce market, the lower the minimum wage will be, since the minimum wage will have to be realistic. You cannot have a high minimum wage, if the market is flooded with surnumerary workers. In general, the Capital prefers more low skilled workers, at a lower price per wage, than less skilled workers, but at a higher price per wage, especially in low skilled jobs.

[Anonymous No.13472221]

>>13472104
>Ken Rockwell
C'mon man. Really?

[Anonymous No.13472272]

>>13472014
>he thinks a wall will stop illegal immigration
Delusional.

[Anonymous No.13472289]

>>13472218
So when you say 'the Capital', it's basically another word for 'bourgeoisie'.

[Anonymous No.13472298]

>>13472272
I wouldn't say that a wall will stop ALL illegal immigration because that's not what I believe. Still, it will be a major deterrent and will make it easier to catch the illegals to keep them at detention centres to be processed instead of just letting them go hoping they'd show up to the court date. What was it, 85% of illegals don't go to court? Unacceptable. Since the wall will make it easier to catch illegals, and ICE will likely work to keep track of those who overstay their Visa and deport them, the problem of illegal immigration WILL improve thanks to the wall since anyone deported will have a MUCH harder time sneaking in. They'll be spotted, detained, and deported once more.

[Anonymous No.13472321]

>>13472221
yes. why are you doubting it?

[Anonymous No.13472330]

>>13472321
What do you like about him?

[Anonymous No.13473203]

>>13466020
>13 reasons why
please tell me you are memeing