[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 93 KB, 1536x1343, T07573_10[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14531452 No.14531452 [Reply] [Original]

Does a true anti-art movement exist? And I don't mean dada, it's still art and even more pretentious and narcissistic. Also I don't mean a movement against fine arts and the money laundering scams or western arts . I mean every conceivable way of human expression and the absurd notion that it holds some mystical ''value''.

Why don't people question art? It seems that every group from nazis to lgbtq to anarchists or muslims support this useless activity

>> No.14531456

>>14531452
I bet you're fun at parties

>> No.14531491

>>14531452

It's too abstract to question in its entirety

>> No.14531495

>>14531452

You genuinely sound like a not fun person

>> No.14531502

>>14531452
>Why don't people question art? It seems that every group from nazis to lgbtq to anarchists or muslims support this useless activity
... people do. Read Baudrillard. Read Pierre Bourdieu. Read Andrea Fraser.

>> No.14531504
File: 113 KB, 680x486, CTPark-Bucharest.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14531504

>>14531452
Probably the most anti-art mindset is Functionalism.

>> No.14531508

>>14531452
Everything created after the disease of the Enlightenment is trash. Of course, after human civilization falls and we are replaced by idk cockroaches, it'll be meaningless anyway. Art simply exists to remind us of timeless truths and add beauty to the suffering of life. That is all.

>> No.14531523

>>14531495
>>14531456
Upvoted

>> No.14531549

> The philosopher Roger Taylor puts forward that art is a bourgeois ideology that has its origins with capitalism in "Art, an Enemy of the People".

>> No.14531649

>>14531504
this

>> No.14531767

>>14531502
>>14531504
>>14531549
Thank you guys I'm currently reading about all your suggestions. Fraser is an artist but still interesting.

>> No.14531780

the fluxus anti-art movement was pretty anti-art but it got misinterpreted as anti-entry-level-skill-art and here we are now
I wouldn't trust the public with big ideas if i was you

>> No.14531859

>>14531452
Memes are in some sense anti art and this generations dada.

Also dada was originally anti bourgeois. The pretentiousness came later when the bourgeois appropriated dada without really understanding it

>> No.14531866

>>14531452
To destroy art would mean destroying the conceptual boundaries that underlie western society. It would mean to abolish the division between productive and unproductive, useful and useless, art and work, etc... and it is not utopian; for these are mere ideas, and these distinctions do not exist in the concrete interactions of everyday life.

>> No.14531899

>>14531504
the union of form and function is THE modernist strategy, though

>> No.14531916

>>14531452
The Capital
Mein Kampf

>> No.14531962
File: 1.46 MB, 1080x2280, qyf5rf5hwr631.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14531962

>>14531899
This is about as aesthetic as a diseased sore

>> No.14532236

>>14531962
/n/erd detected

>> No.14533995

>>14531452
>Does a true anti-art movement exist?

Not really. Any idea of 'art' is contingent with the Renaissance conception of that idea and the metaphysics of presence which regulates its meaning in the economy of the eventual teleological return to pure presence as resolves from the problem of difference. Dada and most modernisms (i.e. art after Kant and especially Hegel) are generally considered as a 'break' from the traditions (or conventions) of art established in the Renaissance, most notably the display of a scene by what is considered the proper mode of translation between a scene that would be three dimensions 'in nature' but re-presented in a two dimensional medium. We can consider, as a shortcut, Euclidean geometry, the single-point perspective; expression of internal psychological states in humans; the point of greatest meaning in a scene, etc. These conditions of art as 're-presentations' were only legitimised if they followed certain regulations of how one re-presents that metaphysical pure presence that is the subject of all art. Anti-art is only a 'break' in that it shifts the re-presented center of art to the bourgeois, secular political projects of ideology as a teleological fulfillment of human nature. The point of art, after a certain point, is the self-actualised existence of a rational human subject in a given 'moment', living 'in a moment' that is regulated by the interaction between an ideological economy of human behaviours and the education by empirical experience and rational speculation. But held in reserve in this discussion is the metaphysical presence that regulates both art and 'anti-art' in a Hegelian system of ultimate redemption in the field of that presence, because the only way to possibly consider 'art' is this economy of re-presentation. There is no such thing as 'art' outside the closure of metaphysics.

>> No.14534214

>>14531452
It's called Islam.

>> No.14534228

>>14531452
>useless activity

well without it i'd have killed myself years ago so guess it's not that useless after all

>> No.14534267

>>14531962
just looking at that long enough sucks away any passion i had for life.

>> No.14534456

>>14531452
Duchamp -> Warhol -> Koons if you want art to teach you why art is trash. Read Baudrillard’s Conspiracy of Art or Pauline Kael’s Art, Trash, and the Movies if you want a deeper perspective. I will say, in accordance with early posters in this thread, you do come off as a retard who hasn’t even considered the naturalist account of art (see: Aristotle and Nietzsche, among many others) that doesn’t rely on ooga booga concepts trumped up by unclarity. I think the Baudrillard piece would be more up your alley insofar as basically everything since the birth of the camera is, in a sense, anti-art; this is REALLY explicit in the contemporary art world where everything is more of a gimmick than it is even decadent. I would hope you’re not so dumb as to anachronistically dismiss the simple artistic pleasure of, say, Titian or Rabelais just because you’re feeling a little cynical as of late. If that’s what you’re going for stick up with Plato.

>> No.14534767

>>14534456
Thank you I'm currently reading Baudrillard since he has been suggested twice and Taylor. I find it strange that in order to critique or negate art you have to create more art ,it's like an endless loophole. That's why I asked for suggestions outside the "art world" I'm not dismissing anyone (yet).

>> No.14534812

>>14531452
read Plato

>> No.14535075

>>14531452
yes. you can read about it in culture of critique.