/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14964840]

Are there any books that go over how we can bring art and culture back to what it once was?

[Anonymous No.14964842]

>>14964840
Why would you ever want that?

[Anonymous No.14964850]

>>14964840
is this from prager u lol

[Anonymous No.14964851]

>>14964842
Books or art back to where it was once was?

[Anonymous No.14964860]

>>14964840
>y-axis is labelled "standards" without any values
lmao, it's almost as if quality is subjective and Prager is full of shit

[Anonymous No.14964866]

>>14964840
How are they measuring standards?

[Anonymous No.14964874]

>>14964850
Yes

[Anonymous No.14964880]

>>14964860
Enjoyment is subjective but criticism is objective. I don't think many people are going to suggest that music today is as good as Mozart etc etc.

[Anonymous No.14964885]

>>14964880
>criticism is objective
what is your objective metric for critique

[Anonymous No.14964886]

in all earnestness, we need belief in god -- or at the very least a functioning patron system. idk of books about this, but it is the subject of my autism. if i write a book this will be its focus. for okay essays on why contemporary art is shit, read david salle's "how to see"

[Anonymous No.14964897]

>>14964885
If I say my criteria for a good painting is that it has a person in it than if a painting has a person under my criteria it's objectively good. That doesn't mean the painting is objectively good or my criteria is objectively good just that's it's objective under my terms.

[Anonymous No.14964918]

>>14964886
honestly, with the untapped potential of crowdfunding, I think patronage will become a big thing in the next few years. I'm a musician and I occasionally session for an independent artist who had all of her upcoming shows cancelled because of corona. She's since put out a single and done a fair amount of live streams and has managed to raise enough money to cover the next few month's rent until the self-employed government payments kick in. I know another band who have managed to fund recording costs for their EP through crowdfunding. If you have something people want, they will happily pay in advance as long as you are reliable.

[Anonymous No.14964925]

>>14964918
Patronage is meaningless if the taste of the patron is shit.

[Anonymous No.14964928]

>>14964880
'Objective' standards are subjective standards that set up their own metaphysics to raise these standards to objective. Without people there are no standards, so it cannot be objective.

[Anonymous No.14964930]

>>14964918
crowdfunding has merit in music, but im skeptical of it to promote good painting

[Anonymous No.14964932]

>>14964897
>objective under my terms
And how is this still not a subjective judgement of quality? Saying its objective according to your own terms means those terms will be different for someone else. You're just describing subjectivity and calling it objective.

[Anonymous No.14964933]

>>14964928
I already said that dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.14964934]

>>14964897
Idiot, all good paintings use the colour blue. There is no such thing as a good painting that does not use the colour blue.

[Anonymous No.14964935]

>>14964925
untrue, see dutch portraiture, or the mid/late renaissance

[Anonymous No.14964939]

>>14964933
>make shit up day on /lit/

[Anonymous No.14964942]

>>14964934
this is unironically correct

[Anonymous No.14964958]

>>14964925
The patron's taste has zero bearing on whether or not a patronage system for the arts is possible. You can be stuffy and elitist all your like, but you just come across as detached from reality. Don't bother writing a book on it if you're going to make irrelevant points like that, you're obviously not a creative and have no experience in the field. Your autism is really shining through here.

[Anonymous No.14964959]

>>14964932
It is subjective but anyone can subscribe to some form of criticism and use that as their line of thought. So PragerU and I would subscribe to the same type of criticism making the graph objective to us. That's all I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.14964963]

>>14964939
>That doesn't mean the painting is objectively good or my criteria is objectively good just that's it's objective under my terms.
Do you understand this?

[Anonymous No.14964967]

>>14964958
i didn't make that post, anon. im the autistic painter who cares too much

[Anonymous No.14964970]

>>14964935
What's your point?

[Anonymous No.14964973]

>>14964963
Yes and it has nothing to do with what I said. Criticism isn't objective either.

[Anonymous No.14964979]

>>14964958
Yeah but it doesnt matter if patronage exists if they are just gonna fund Lil Uzi Vert and avant garde conceptual art

[Anonymous No.14964980]

>>14964930
Yeah, its a tricky one, it does give the consumer a lot more control over who gets the most funding, but that is necessary if we are keen to pull our money away from the corruption that is the contemporary art world and auction houses. I honestly believe it couldn't get any worse than it already is at present.

[Anonymous No.14964982]

>>14964970
the work was good, medici and co.'s taste didn't matter, only their money

[Anonymous No.14964985]

>>14964959
>It's subjectively objective

You're a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.14964991]

>>14964979
see
>>14964980
would you prefer the biggest artists to be heavily shilled by dumb-as-fuck record companies and wanky art critics, or would you rather let the public themselves dictate the production of culture? What is the point of having gatekeepers to taste if those gatekeepers no longer have any taste? It's an interesting question.

[Anonymous No.14964995]

>>14964973
The statements made under the guidelines make it objective under that system not that the system is objective.

[Anonymous No.14965000]

>>14964840
Didn't Scruton have something about this?

[Anonymous No.14965004]

>>14964982
Yes but what if they funded bad art then it would be meaningless.

[Anonymous No.14965013]

>>14964985
The system itself is subjective

The statements made under the system using the system are objective.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[Anonymous No.14965019]

>>14964995
This is nonsense. The statements made aren't on a one-to-one relation to the regulating idea of the objective standards. It isn't pure.

[Anonymous No.14965023]

>>14964991
the public, in this case -- esp. since market forces desire value over beauty

unfortunately, this will not in itself produce good art. mostly, it will produce porn. still better than damien hirst, banksy etc

[Anonymous No.14965025]

>>14964840
Wow art is cancelled

[Anonymous No.14965026]

>>14965013
It isn't hard to understand it's just wrong because of your subjective interpretation of what object

[Anonymous No.14965027]

>>14965019
If we say math isn't objective that doesn't matter because under Math 1 + 1 = 2 is objective statement.

[Anonymous No.14965030]

>>14965027
You aren't expressing objective standards of art in math

[Anonymous No.14965036]

>>14965004
it is the job of the arts to define and shape aesthetic sense. it is the job of patrons to fund them. historically, this has been best demonstrated in a religious context

[Anonymous No.14965044]

>>14965013
Because there is literally no point in using the term "objective" in that instance, all you're doing is diluting the meaning of objectivity to mean whatever you want.

It's like saying "this statement is objectively true but only within the context of this statement". If it isn't objectively true outside of those conditions, then it isn't "objective".

[Anonymous No.14965050]

>>14965030
No but I can create a 1 + 1 = 2 under my subjective form of criticism. By stating something like paintings with the color blue are the only good paintings.

[Anonymous No.14965052]

my keyboard is broken and typing with the on screen keyboard is truncating my thoughts some, apologies where i am unclear

[Anonymous No.14965056]

>>14965023
I fuckin hate Tik Tok as much as the next guy (not least because its selling our data and souls to the chinese), but I genuinely believe there are a few people using it who are going to be the next great filmmakers. The same goes for patronage and crowdfunding– it's simply gonna take a bit of time.

[Anonymous No.14965058]

>>14965036
So patronage wouldn't really help the problem that me and that other guy were talking about then

[Anonymous No.14965062]

>>14964840
Do they explain why 1860 was the peak of artistic standards and why we had zero artistic standards in 1960?

[Anonymous No.14965074]

>>14965050
No because 'good' is not an objective term. There are no grounds for your claim of objectivity even if it is a well-structured system that can account for all works of art. Even the idea of 'art' is not objective - it is a historically contingent term.

[Anonymous No.14965078]

>>14965058
no it would, it decouples artist's livelihood from the market value of art

[Anonymous No.14965083]

>>14965062

[Anonymous No.14965089]

>>14965056
agreed! my positions are biased toward painting, admittedly, which should i think emulate old working structures rather than forge new ones. online is fantastic and promising for new media

[Anonymous No.14965126]

I wonder how much thought was put into this. Did someone actually decide that artistic standards peaked sometime around 1860? What was even going on in visual art and aesthetics at the time?
By the way, the "artist" presenting this video is a Boys' Life-tier hack. Pic related

[Anonymous No.14965140]

>>14965126
It is generally the height of academic painting before say impressionism as the 'start of modernism'

[Anonymous No.14965149]

>>14965126
the 1860s were when french painters broke from the academy, for awhile things were good but within a generation went to shit. i hesitate to call it a high point, but definitely a schism and the start of the contemporary trouble

[Anonymous No.14965155]

>>14965140
ehh i like the 1600/1700s better for height

[Anonymous No.14965166]

>>14965074
The grounds for objectivity are literally the existence of the framework which automatically make it objective. Nothing you say can change that.

[Anonymous No.14965171]

>>14965078
It decouples shit artists livelihood again not helping the problem of contemporary art we were talking about.

[Anonymous No.14965174]

>>14965126
>I wonder how much thought was put into this
It's Prager, so you can safely assume whoever made the graph was in a semi-vegetative state.

[Anonymous No.14965180]

>>14965155
Yeah I'm just going by general survey overview. I don't think impressionism is the start of modernism either

[Anonymous No.14965183]

the subjectivity of art is why god is a good anchor for meaningful collaboration between patrons of the arts, and artists : )

[Anonymous No.14965184]

>>14965140
I suppose that makes sense. The guy only really gestures vaguely at the standards he thinks are right. He compliments the impressionists but seems to think they're inferior to Bouguereau because they are less "realistic," but there are photo-realistic painters who are "better" in that regard than Da Vinci or whatever. Frankly I don't understand the point of the video -- to anyone with a sense of the history art it is going to come off as retarded, so is it just to propagandize plebs who don't care about art anyway? Is Prager a pleb himself and the video just a vain expression of his dumb ideas?

[Anonymous No.14965188]

>>14965166
Alright, my self-contradictory framework is objective. One work of art could be amazing one day, and worthless the next.

[Anonymous No.14965196]

>>14965171
the problem of contemporary art is the profit motive, efficiency of production is valued over meaningful work

[Anonymous No.14965218]

>>14964874
Tell (((PragerU))) that it is they who did this

[Anonymous No.14965345]

>>14965196
It has nothing to do with profit motive because there would be still examples of good art or movements you could point to by artists who create depsite the profit motive but no such thing exists because the taste of artists and general population has declined.

[Anonymous No.14965360]

>>14965188
I'm pretty sure there aren't many philosophers that think the categorical imperative isn't objective in the sense of it's own framework.

[Anonymous No.14965436]

>>14965345
i dont follow your argument

[Anonymous No.14965454]

>>14965436
Profit motive would guide the majority of art sure because artists need to make money and taste changes with the consensus but you would still find artists who didn't care about money but would create good art. Since this doesn't exist you can't say profit motive is the reason for the decline since profit motive doesn't guide 100% of art.

[Anonymous No.14965482]

>>14965360
They'd be using their own frameworks to judge it, etc. Unless there is something that pins a framework to the reality beyond subjective experience then it can never be objective, just a network of subjective approvals.

[Anonymous No.14965488]

>>14965454
ah, ok. this gets a bit into the death of the academy and the banality of conceptual art, which i believe are both directly and indirectly influenced by profit, tho i could be wrong. i dont think i agree with your claim that no good art is being made today, rather that there is no functional institution to support and display good art

[Anonymous No.14965503]

>>14965488
>rather that there is no functional institution to support and display good art
If this was true you could point to a decent list of good art and movements but that doesn't really exist. All you have is maybe picking out a very few fringe art works that qualify as not terrible but other than that there is nothing.

[Anonymous No.14965523]

>>14965503
https://www.dprk-art.com/index.php?option=com_jreviews&Itemid=28&lang=en

[Anonymous No.14965536]

kind of a shit post, but north korea probably has the best school of living painters today

[Anonymous No.14965553]

and without representation, how should i begin to build such a list? i could present myself as a good painter, but i dont have the self confidence

[Anonymous No.14965637]

>>14965503
Good art is tied to movements and movements to institutions.

[Anonymous No.14965686]

>>14965637
The institution and movement didn't change because of the profit motive but because the postmodern types took hold of the art world. They are the ones who changed it.

[Anonymous No.14965714]

>>14965686
Lib-types who make art these days are only really concerned with being able to live off art or just supplement their income. Postmodern art for the most part was escaping the commodification of art and making it more social.

[Anonymous No.14965732]

>>14965686
post modern conceptual art is inherently linked to capital and profit, modern galleries and art institutes are businesses

[Anonymous No.14965742]

>>14965714
this

[Anonymous No.14965762]

The Dispossessed Majority - Robertson

[Anonymous No.14965770]

>>14965714
It started the decline which brought us to these times of nothing of substance. It did the same for every other art form. The profit motive existed in the 1910s too but there was still good enough art being made.
>>14965732
The artists who started the movements were broke socialists who wanted to get rid of the profit motive painting because of the art not because of the money. The artists after them are inspired by these people. How could you say it's the profit motive and not the works that these artists created?. The profit motive comes in after those broke artists became popular.

[Anonymous No.14965790]

>>14964840
>posting the outdated standards chart
Its been on a slow increase ever since 2016

[Anonymous No.14965797]

>>14964840
Mein Kampf (unironically)

[Anonymous No.14965800]

>>14965790
Why

[Anonymous No.14965801]

>>14965770
change is slow -- the time period you're talking about, a strong tradition of good painting was still in living memory.
i concede that the problem is more complicated than merely the corrupting influence of profit, but the end game of a living artist is sotheby's, or high gallery representation and their valuation of work is unquestionably bad. the cult of duchamp wannabes is also very bad for art, of course. but current incentives are also bad

[Anonymous No.14965813]

>>14965801
Seems like we don't really disagree. Just getting rid of the profit motive doesn't mean there would magically be tons of great art being made.

[Anonymous No.14965815]

>>14965770
>It started the decline which brought us to these times of nothing of substance.

The social aspect of it is the substance; changing the world through art. The 'crisis of representation' prompted shortcutting of traditional representative modes to get to the 'point' of subjective experience of art. Hence American artists adopting forms other than the academic formalism of painterly abstraction, like the playful renewed interest in Dada (and arbitrariness of representations) or the phenomelogical experience of Minimalism.

[Anonymous No.14965818]

in part, look at how the canon is constructed and why. the canon through the 20th and 21st century is increasingly terrible, but these are who young artists are taught to emulate. today the canon is amended and edified by, in large part, the auction house

[Anonymous No.14965828]

>>14965813
i think so, too. modernity has several safeguards against good work being made, capital efficiency might just upset me most lol

[Anonymous No.14965841]

>>14965818
From what I've heard no one is taught to emulate anyone. You're supposed to develop your art independently and maybe you are given similar artists that can help you develop your craft.

[Anonymous No.14965849]

>>14965815
chair on ceiling good

[Anonymous No.14965856]

>>14965849
serious art good

[Anonymous No.14965858]

>>14965841
only nominally true, in my own (regrettable) experience. emulation is maybe disavowed, but still reinforced via group critique, artist reccs, show selection

[Anonymous No.14965878]

>>14964840
If you want better art you have to invest in better art classes/teachers in schools. This goes across all forms of art. Unless you teach poetry you end up with an entire generation of Rupi Kaur because her poetry is so simple that the average reader who has never read or learn to read poetry can understand and enjoy it. How can you expect someone to appreciate Mozart if you don't teach them music theory? How can someone enjoy Picasso or Rembrandt if they don't understand color theory? While art is subjective, how it is made and the craft is a learned skill. Too many people try art as if you sit around and a muse comes out of the skies and bonks you on the head and suddenly you can art.

[Anonymous No.14965894]

>>14965856
How do you get to the place where you see empty room with nothing but a toilet and go yes this is beauty? Were you born with it or did it come with learning?

[Anonymous No.14965897]

>>14965878
was going great until you mentioned picasso. if you need a spaniard, there's always velasquez

[Anonymous No.14965905]

>>14965878
>If you want better art you have to invest in better art classes/teachers in schools. This goes across all forms of art. Unless you teach poetry you end up with an entire generation of Rupi Kaur because her poetry is so simple that the average reader who has never read or learn to read poetry can understand and enjoy it. How can you expect someone to appreciate Mozart if you don't teach them music theory? How can someone enjoy Picasso or Rembrandt if they don't understand color theory? While art is subjective, how it is made and the craft is a learned skill. Too many people try art as if you sit around and a muse comes out of the skies and bonks you on the head and suddenly you can art.
Wow good take. I've made this thread like 20 times and no one ever said that but makes sense

[Anonymous No.14965914]

>>14964840
>prager u

boomers love this garbage

[Anonymous No.14965917]

>>14965914
>tik tok
zoomers love this garbage

[Anonymous No.14965944]

>>14965897
I was just throwing out a painter and he is ubiquitous.

[Anonymous No.14965951]

>>14965858
Sure, but that reinforcement is based on what is considered the 'purpose of art' which - mainly in contemporary art - is self-expression. I don't need Prager to know that. Self-expression leads to 'diversified' stories, histories, narratives, modes of expression, etc., and it turns an ok buck because that's what many gallery-goers want to see - to make them feel good about themselves and their society, or whatever motivates them.

On the other hand you see playful conceptual or serial works, which for the most part aren't "good" but still show to us just what an 'objective' art system can look like, and it reflects on how we create systems to self-govern - otherwise bringing to light areas of contemporary life which are invisible.

The profit margin isn't a good scapegoat because it has existed for centuries. There is still great Dutch art even though it was driven by profit. Pre-revolution academies in France were motivated by the King's selection (and monetary bonus) - we don't call David bad, for example.

Contemporary Chinese art is selling well in the markets, but no one thinks of this when they describe contemporary art, e.g. shitting on a canvas. Photography is one of the most popular and prolific modes of art in galleries, but again it is nothing compared to shitting on a canvas.

If there is a problem with contemporary art, it is that it is dominated by the metaphysics of presence. Things 'being' or beings 'experiencing' or what have you. Art is deconstructed only enough so that the traditions can be questioned, but not the ontotheology shared between the traditions and secularised politics.

I don't care much for Marxist analysis.

[Anonymous No.14965954]

>>14965944
you're right i just, i hate pablo

[Anonymous No.14965961]

>>14965894
First, what does beauty have to do with art? Sounds like metaphysics to me.

[Anonymous No.14965978]

>>14965951
thanks for typing this out, i agree for the most part and appreciate your position

[Anonymous No.14965990]

>>14965878
I don't even disagree with you, but how would you refute someone who said that what you propose to do rests upon spooks, and wishes to measure things by the standards of spooks (prosody, colour theory, etc.)? Somebody is bound to come out and say that oh, metre is just a stifling convention of a bygone era, or that colour theory is so bourgeois. I don't think what you want to do is possible in an era that has shed every last bit of those "constructs" in a great iconoclastic orgy that was the last hundred or so years.

[Anonymous No.14966006]

>>14964880
Lots of music today is as good or better than Mozart.

[Anonymous No.14966008]

>>14966006
Lol

[Anonymous No.14966016]

>>14966008
Imagine being Mozart and putting all this work into creating great music, then finding out centuries later that the same effect of emotional response and spiritual fulfillment can be achieved by one person in a bedroom fucking around with electronics.

[Anonymous No.14966036]

>>14964840
This is wrong, but there is issue with art criticism and how we view art today.
Today, art has become a vessel for the ideology of the critic. Art is not viewed by "what is the artist trying to say" but instead "what do I think this means?". This is a fundamentally flawed conception of art.
Art is characterized by the author attempting to convey a meaning, emotion, message, image, etc to the viewer. Where the artist is successful is where he successfully conveys these meanings intobthe minds of the critics.
The issue is because of death of the author, many artists themselves are rejecting to put meaning into their art, which creates meaningless art, mere vessels for ideology.

[Anonymous No.14966042]

>>14966016
Richard D. James >>>>>> Pozzart
https://youtu.be/OSfJoCPcp1E

[Anonymous No.14966051]

>>14966016
Yes.
I won't deny that Mozart was influencial, that much is obviously true, but there's no reason to declare him *better* than all his contemporaries. There have been plenty of contemporary bands and artists that have created music I would consider to be better than Mozart, just like it's not unreasonable to say there have been better authors since Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.14966077]

>some salon arbitrarily decided what's good art and what's not
>butthurt losers who couldn't get into the salon decided to make their own art show for other losers like them
>the value of art's socioeconomic/poltical aspect massively hypertrophies in terms of its judgment
>WW1 happens
>retards use this as an excuse to say that art prior to this point is bad because somehow traditional values led to war
>really degenerate shit happens at this point. The fucking urinal happens and artists accept that anything can be art
>Muh nazis
>Any hope of saving art is forever destroyed. artists reject tradition for good and anyone who resists is a nazi

Modern art in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.14966088]

>>14966077
bruh the salon was for official state art, the urinal happened before ww1, and after ww1 there was a 'call to order' in france because they thought the avant-garde was the cause for war

[Anonymous No.14966102]

>>14966008
I think Mozart would be impressed by many of the songs made today and not just from the culture shock.

[Anonymous No.14966144]

>>14964840
Some people have the right idea in resurrecting or injecting mass value systems but the REAL answer is to end factory farming and ban sugar, reclaim large areas of land for national parks to be used as recreational land and hunting grounds for meat. Destroying the current media system that includes every aspect of modern visual and auditory stimulus for the population will not only remove a disgusting cancerous growth but be a point of struggle and overcoming for artists. Fix the education system, encourage young children, strong support figures, cultural aesthetic change in regards to industrial design (cars and utilitarian architecture).

[Anonymous No.14966146]

>>14964840

All art that isn't state propaganda is a personal expression. Literally the whole romantic movement started because of individuals being like "wow that mountain makes me feel happiness AND dread", and so the idea of the sublime was born. If art requires some telos beyond the individual maker expressing their will to create then it's nothing more than a vessel for mass morality.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966149]

>>14964840
I think you missed the multi-million dollar blockbuster movies?

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966174]

>>14966042
Just wanted to tear this horrible track apart. It sounds like it was made by a child in five minutes. No progression, horrible quality, sound design for each synth sounds like it was chosen at random by a deaf man, the artist cannot play piano/synth, the drums take up too much soundspace, need to be mixed, low quality, clearly no knowledge of music theory, done by ear, painfully repetitive, not even rhythmically competent, as some of the synths seem to be off beat, and if intentional it sounds like shit, has no idea how loud each sound effect should be, put toghether haphazardly. That was quite fun.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966199]

>>14966036
>Where the artist is successful is where he successfully conveys these meanings intobthe minds of the critics.
Art is not a book trying to convert it's viewers into their philosophy, like you messing around on 4chan. It is trying to trick them into thinking what is there is actually real and happening. The viewer suspends their disbelief, and the artist takes advantage of that, so the audience can escape into another world for a bit. The artists job is providing this intoxication.

[Anonymous No.14966205]

>>14965990
I'm not sure I have a good answer for you. I see technical ability as separate from artistic talent. Someone can be a technically gifted illustrator but never create a single page of art. When I talk about education in the schools I mean honing those technical abilities so if they choose to further their career in art they have a base to work from. As to whether what is considered technically sound is a spook or not. The best I can do is say it doesn't matter. What matters is whether you can say what you want to say with your art. The more technically sound you are the better you can express those things to your audience.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966226]

>>14966144
>Some people have the right idea in resurrecting or injecting mass value systems
This has already been tried, and has been tried so successively that it is now harder than ever to implement such value systems UNLESS you got some manpower since people will believe what you want them to believe if you put a gun to their face for long enough if you are picking up what I am putting down here.
>Destroying the current media system that includes every aspect of modern visual and auditory stimulus for the population will not only remove a disgusting cancerous growth but be a point of struggle and overcoming for artists
But this cancerous growth IS art nowadays. By killing off all "modern visual and auditory stimulus" you kill art, since this is what art is.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966240]

>>14965990
>I don't even disagree with you, but how would you refute someone who said that what you propose to do rests upon spooks
Simply respond: "yes, all opinions on art are subjective, but so are opinions on nutrition."

[Anonymous No.14966277]

>>14966174
>muh progression
>muh quality
>muh sound design
>muh soundspace
>muh mixing
>muh music theory
>muh rhythmic competency
>muh beat
>muh relative loudness

Spooked

[Anonymous No.14966295]

>>14966240
While nutrition is a soft science there are right and wrong opinions on nutrition.

[Anonymous No.14966299]

>>14966016
Emotional response doesn't really mean much.

[Anonymous No.14966317]

>>14964840
>Art reduced to personal expression

>Thinks the periods like Romanticism were peak art

Huh.

[Anonymous No.14966348]

>>14966042
>>14966174
First of all, you're a flash-in-the-pan namefag. Secondly, that anon choose perhaps the WORST Aphex track to compare to Mozart. To any other anons who, in the year of our Lord MMXX, have somehow yet managed to listen to RDJ:
https://youtu.be/Z7jr_uFNvVg
https://youtu.be/uYEhczrEnwc
https://youtu.be/nWnUuosQwZY

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966351]

>>14966295
No, there are not. It does not matter whether a science is "soft" or "rock fucking hard". They are still nothing more than interpretations. Even physics is subjective. There is no "true" opinion on nutrition. There might be a creature which can perfectly digest cyanide.

[Anonymous No.14966363]

>>14964840
yes

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arts_and_Crafts_Essays

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts_and_Crafts_movement#References


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im0tNmkFXtE

[Anonymous No.14966371]

ITT: Nostalgia googles from retards.

Makoto shinkai movies are literally among the best 2D animation films in history.
The joker is among the best movies this decade.
Jacob Collier is literally a modern day mozart whose harmony is way way much much more complex than anything bach and mozart and beethoven could even dream off.

Shinkiro art is comparable to XIX century burgeoise visual art.

Cgtalk zbrush sculpts are better than any clasical scultpture.

Cgtalk best works are literally better than any bouguereau XIX century academic painting.

The best of films, animation and games today are way way better in technical terms than any XIX century art.

>but muh modern art
who the fuck gives a fuck about modern art today, faggots?

[Anonymous No.14966373]

>>14966317
Yeah, I don't think Prageru knows anything about art.

[Anonymous No.14966384]

>>14964840
>Standards
>Art

Part of being reasonable and objective is actually recognizing that art is not objective, funny enough.

All art is subject to the whims and imperfect rationalizations of imperfect human beings, the value of art is invented.
There is no value without human input, and since that input varies greatly, there is no objective standard to based non objective endeavors.

Now you're free to disagree with me, but you'll be hard pressed to find objective basis for your disagreement.
To create a piece of literature that is objectively beautiful, would mean you can scientifically prove that it's beautiful, to which I say, find me one work that all of humanity will apply the same value to.

[Anonymous No.14966394]

>>14966384
Art is objective, with regards to what art is. Art is subjective with its value-judgment, i.e it being good or bad.

[Anonymous No.14966401]

>>14966371
Way too obvious, anon. You have to be subtler if you want to bait well.

[Anonymous No.14966404]

>>14966317
Fragonard, Delacroix, Chopin...

[Anonymous No.14966420]

>>14966384
not OP, not I've posted in this thread.

Beauty has certain properties, like repetition, symetry, slight asymetry, proportions, rythm, composition (shit like the divine proportions), use of sacred geometry, etc.

In literature a beautiful story is defined in technical terms as a nice story that follows arquetypical structures of arcs, that follows a build up or crescendo of conflict, has a conflict that is between arquetypical characters that form a balanced orchestration, where the story has nice character arcs with proper spacing between climatic scenes and space to rest, where the characters psychology are explored, where the villain and the hero goes to full consumption of their rivality with final important stakes.
And a proper plot twist at certain intervals that change the understanding of a story.

This shit is pretty basic if you know how to write a story, nigger.

>>14966401
Why?

The beauty standarts in art are conserved in film, animation, progressive music (like prog rock) and videogames.

[Anonymous No.14966421]

>>14966394
technique is objective.

The subjects and ideas being expressed are not.

[Anonymous No.14966422]

>>14966404
I can't tell if you're saying they didn't write through expression or if they did.

[Anonymous No.14966425]

>>14966384
Brett Keane

I can't believe anyone else knows who this is.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966427]

>>14966348
>you're a flash-in-the-pan namefag
you aren't even a flash in the pan, because you are too cowardly to account for your posts because you want to escape yourself so you come on here where people can't string yyour posts toghether and be immediately disgusted by you like real life.
Now onto the tracks:
Saint Michel:
Superior to the first, far superior, but you can tell he has no clue about music theory, which is why he is giving the most soundspace to the least complex and most limited instrument, the easiest to program: the drum. This is where the electronic producer, in all his laziness, exposes himself. This is why the most complex things even the best electronic producers can muster up is breakbeat and dubstep. Nice attempt at a melody of some kind at ~2:30, even though he has absolutely no idea how to progress it so he goes back to retard drum banging. Cool ending, even if gimmicky. Five minutes too long.
XMAS:
Same problem: no idea how to progress his songs, so he ends up with hopeless repetition. I am genuinely surprised that he could drag this track out for ten minutes. That singing effect that comes in at 2:27 is awful, it should've been mixed differently there, then when the effects came in which originally necessitated the odd mix, the necessary mix returned. I like the bellish effects near the end, even if he has absolutely no idea what to do with them.
Lichen:
Basic bitch ambient. The easiest genre to make. The most overrated album of all time ("but it's long! So we have to like it!"). Even so, when he dials down the complexity because he realizes he can't handle it, he is at least a bit more competent.

[Anonymous No.14966431]

>>14966051
BASED AND REDPILLED.

[Anonymous No.14966444]

Jacob collins music is much more harmonically complex than anything on clasical, baroque and romantic periods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zua831utwMM

This is his cover of the flinstones theme which he won a grammy for.
It's much more complex than any beethoven or mozart or bach piece.

[Anonymous No.14966485]

>>14966444
this is cringe af

[Anonymous No.14966490]

>>14966485
t. retard that doesn't know harmony

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966495]

>>14966371
>Jacob Collier is literally a modern day mozart whose harmony is way way much much more complex than anything bach and mozart and beethoven could even dream off.
https://youtu.be/Hrf5j6gXCo0
this is 50bpm garbage music only a female would listen to with enthusiasm.
https://youtu.be/VMzIBNC_ojI
... are you kidding me.
https://youtu.be/Cp_-1fnWjzE
I am convinced you are a faggot. An effeminate, girly, dainty female. This is 20bpm garbage. >>14966042
was more complex, and more listenable. At least that was only 2 minutes. This guy managed to drag his effeminate barf out nine minutes.
https://youtu.be/VPLCk-FTVvw
This is a slave shanty sung by black men on slave boats compared to bach.

[Anonymous No.14966499]

>>14966495
he writes pop music.

his works still are more complex than anything from the romantic or clasical period.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966505]

>>14966444
Wait until I tell you about choirs...

[Anonymous No.14966509]

>>14964840
This is a terrible graph, lmao

[Anonymous No.14966515]

>>14966505
again, we can still argue on technical terms why his music isn't like a modern version of clasical and romantic composers.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966533]

>>14966499
No, they are not. Only a person entirely ignorant of baroque music could say such a thing, let alone the classical or romantic periods. He has the power of a barber shop quartet, if that. Because he is using only the voice, he cannot do complex sweeps or trills. He is limited to midrange frequencies because he is limited by his voice. Human voices always have similar sound signatures, limiting him further. Furthermore, he always uses slow BPMs whereas most baroque compositions are usually double the speed (meaning their complexity is doubled, since more is happening in less time). Like, do you even know what an orchestra is? How many instruments are in an orchestra? This is just sad.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966555]

>>14966499
>He writes pop music
Limiting him even further. He is stuck to sad, small compositions lasting at most ~9 minutes (it would be way less if his tempo wasn't the pace of a snail). Meanwhile, a Beethoven can pump out a four movement symphony with each movement being 20 minutes long and not break a sweat since he actually knows how to compose.

[Anonymous No.14966559]

>>14966533
Not him. What are the best books about music theory and just music in general? What should a plebeian read to become educated about the matter? I mean stuff like Taruskin's history of music or Tchaikovsky's book about melody.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966566]

>>14966515
Dude, you said a 3 minute, six voice rendition of the flintstones piece was superior to all of western classical music.

[Anonymous No.14966575]

>>14966505
>>14966495
>>14966533
>>14966555
There's some modern day artists that are quite aesthetical.

This a very beautiful piece that could posibelly be in a JRPG, and has a lot of ornaments from clasical and baroque periods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv4UD4ICd_0

Castlevania SOTN has a lot of baroque inspired pieces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL0UoyFS7Ww

The wood carving partita is a fine piece that follow period pieces.
Maybe not as good as the best of baroque, but still a very aesthetical piece.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh6V1zMmbuU

One winged angel is a nobuo uematsu piece from FFVII that follows a clasical orchestration and was inspired by stravinsky pieces and has elements from hendrix.

It's a well done orchestral piece.


>>14966566
I said harmonically.
It's an intonal piece, which is harmonically more avant garde and advanced than any clasical harmony.
It's closer to microtonal music and atonality than clasical harmony.

[Anonymous No.14966628]

>>14966490
collier is tasteless garbage

[Anonymous No.14966639]

>>14966016
>imagine being mozart, putting all this work into fucking around with a piano in his bedroom, only to find out that people can fuck around with electronic pianos in their bedroom

[Anonymous No.14966653]

>retards think that the baroque, clasical and romantic periods weren't also filled with millions of mediocre artists

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966671]

>>14966575
The first piece was cheerful until ~1:30 where the laughable claps came in. Past 2:20 with the drums it is not good. The 4 to the floor kick does not work. But still enjoyable, so thanks for sharing.
The castlevania piece was not very good. The sound of the synthesized violins was just so abysmal it is pretty much unlistenabe, even if it has the harpsicord. It still sounds like a parody of the real thing, though, which it pretty much is since it's made in Japan.
The Final Fantasy piece is horrible. It reminds me of rite of spring modern classical decadent garbage. Horrible man.
Really, dude, just listen to the masters. They sacrificed their lives to making good music. After you listen to them everything else sounds like parody. There is no affectation in what I am saying. I am not saying mozart is good because I will get pseudointellectual cultured points. I am saying it because his music is awesome.

[Anonymous No.14966682]

>>14964840
Imagine actually believing this and not recognizing that artistic "decline" relates entirely to tax subsidy programs for the ultrawealthy in the purchasing of hyper overvalued art

[Anonymous No.14966696]

>>14966671
I agree, I understand the complexity of Bach, he's like on the same level as shakespeare.

However comparing every modern musical piece to beethoven and bach, would be like comparing all modern literature to shakespeare.

Not all artists would be as compelled to reach the level of bach.
This doesn't mean that if a modern day kid wanted, he couldn't become another modern day bach.

We have the fucking internet, which most geniuses back then would have killed for.

Beethoven would have loved modern tech, and we today could have giving back his ears.

There was plenty of lesser more mediocre composers, more than we can count today.

The real issue is if we personally are up to the standart of reaching the levels of the old masters.

Geniuses are geniuses, and if bach would have been born today he would have made even more complex music.

Look up nobuo music.
He has some really beautiful pieces, maybe not up to beethoven, but really emotional and pretty pieces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHgjRE2rro8

The terra theme from FFVI is a really beautiful piece, that follows clasical structures.

[Anonymous No.14966708]

Stop talking about music retards it's a craft not an art

[Anonymous No.14966739]

>>14966653
midwits couldn't tell the mediocre from the masterworks. they are primarily interested in how "realistic" it looks

[Anonymous No.14966746]

>>14966708
There is craft in all art

[Anonymous No.14966754]

>>14966739
yeah, but the kind of genius of the level of shakespeare can't be manufactured.

They are just born and appear.

Maybe there's some kid today born that will be another beethoven, another chopin.

We don't know, because they just happen to be born once in a century.

Such modern gay genius will have all the books, recordings and education not even the best people had in the 90's much less in the XIX century.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966756]

>>14966696
Yeah that piece is better even if a bit predictable. Sounds like ennio morricone. Though I would never listen to it again. It was created to fit in the video game, and not be a stand-alone piece outside of it.
>Beethoven would have loved modern tech, and we today could have giving back his ears.
Oh yes certainly, I am not knocking modern technology or the potential of electronic music and the amazing possibilities that it opens up in music. The problem is, is that we live in a democracy where the average man rules over music, and not bored rich aristocrats with absurdly high tastes. That's how we go from baroque music to the middling Romanticists to slave jazz to decadent jazz (funk) to to decadent funk (hip-hop) to decadent hip-hop (trap): the low tastes of mediocre people dominating.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14966779]

>>14966754
>yeah, but the kind of genius of the level of shakespeare can't be manufactured.
>They are just born and appear.
>Maybe there's some kid today born that will be another beethoven, another chopin.
>We don't know, because they just happen to be born once in a century.
>Such modern gay genius will have all the books, recordings and education not even the best people had in the 90's much less in the XIX century.
It's a bit different than what you say.
It is because of advanced technology that more and more genius will be lead astray and hurt themselves. Great men, as civilization progresses up, and exchange is entrenched deeper and wider, become more rare, since civilization is pretty much psynonymous with femininity, since it destroys self-reliance for relying on others = exchange. BUT, the great men that do appear are greater than ever before, since they have all this technology. A modern day electonic bach would be much more rare, and will take longer, but when such a man is born, there will be no question it his superiority over all the music of the past.

[Anonymous No.14966796]

>>14966756
yeah, but this state of affairs allow any genius today to be discovered much more easily than before.

The average musician even 20 years ago had to slave to get some patronage.

It was before rich people, but poor kids who couldn't afford to be born in a elite family had no chance.

Today is a bit more chaotic, but any kid in their basement can reach bigger audiences than mozart could when he was a kid.

We can all mock justin bieber, but he was discovered though the internet.

If Mozart wasn't born to an educated family of musicians, he would have never become what he was.

Again, geniuses are born, but also made.
Today we have the chance some kid from the thirld world could become a musical genius.

>>14966779
yeah I agree.

But I think is not diferent from older days, since the average person back then was an illiterate farmer or factory worker.

Modern day african shitholes have the same level of development and similar GDP to WWI europe.
So, there's hope now that today is easier for some poor kid born in the thirld world to be discovered.

The internet allows even poor kids in poor countries to receive the same education on youtube, someone like a college musician has today.

In any case, I would appreciate some recomendations for music theory books of maybe baroque, clasical and romantic periods.

[Anonymous No.14966843]

>>14966746
There is not art in all craft

[Anonymous No.14967021]

>>14966420
>arquetypical structures of arcs
Do you mean archetypal? There are plenty of great stories with original narrative structures.
>a build up or crescendo of conflict
>a conflict that is between arquetypical characters
>climatic scenes and space to rest
>the characters psychology are explored
Not common to all great stories.
>the villain and the hero goes to full consumption of their rivality with final important stakes
lmao most serious literature doesn't have heros vs villains
>a nice story
>a balanced orchestration
>nice character arcs
>proper spacing
>a proper plot twist
To say beauty has certain properties is to say what it means for something to be "nice" or "proper" or "balanced." Defining a beautiful story as a story with nice, proper, and balanced elements says nothing. What makes those properties nice, proper, and balanced is what is up for contention.

[Anonymous No.14967039]

>>14967021
depends, those are the main elements in storytelling, is up to the writer to use them.

It would be as silly as claiming that color has not properties that can be studied to analyze visual arts.

Same as analysis a painting using their composition, narrative, design language, color thoery, anatomy, values, character design, enviroment design, etc.

[Anonymous No.14967063]

>>14967039
I agree with you that works of art have common properties, but my point is that you're not saying anything meaningful about objective beauty. It's like saying "a beautiful painting has nice colors, a proper subject, and a balanced composition" Well? What makes them nice, proper, and balanced? That's the question.

[Anonymous No.14967065]

>>14964840
The literal definition of a made up chart

[Anonymous No.14967112]

>>14967063
depends on the craft.

In music it depends on a good emotional melody, which has several properties that make it catchy (repetition, proper development and variance, use of motiffs, nice balance of steps and leaps, good use of harmonic journey, follows the properties of a human voice, simple enough to be memorable, not overcomplex voice leading).

In visual arts is always a good use of color theory, balance in the composition, neoteny, an emotional narrative in the visual story of the piece, follows the golden proportions, good use of 3D shapes and values and shading, proper rendering of tones and blending of colors.

Those are the major ingredients of beauty in music and paintings.

Just like you can cook an egg and meat, cheese, veggies, spices, in infinite ways, a cook should be aware of what ingredients to use with his idea for the piece.

Beauty in art usually comes down to pieces that make you feel emotions but also that make you think about deep human issues we all share through centuries (love, feelings of death, loneliness, betrayal, nature, friendship, war, illness, sadness, happyness).

[Anonymous No.14967181]

>>14965878
>Too many people try art as if you sit around and a muse comes out of the skies and bonks you on the head and suddenly you can art.


i wish a muse would do that to me

[Anonymous No.14967303]

>>14967112
AGAIN YOU'RE NOT SAYING ANYTHING MEANINGFUL
What makes development and variance "proper?"
How does one render tones "properly?"
We aren't wondering what elements go into a work of art. We're wondering what makes those elements OBHECTIVELY GOOD.

[Anonymous No.14969057]

>>14964850
Lmao i havent seen that video and i could tell instantly just from the style and how arbitrary and retarded it is

[Anonymous No.14969083]

>>14966051
give some examples please, not trying to criticize you, just curious

[Anonymous No.14969165]

>treating 19th century academicism as anything else than profane monstrosity
also, ive seen the shit they shill on ArtRenewal, only a prot culture could sincerely claim this as Tradition

[Anonymous No.14969174]

>>14969083
Lots of people have different opinions on the matter. Here's some that come to mind as regularly cited artists that are at least "as good as Mozart"
>The Beatles
>The Beach Boys (maybe)
>Black Sabbath
>Miles Davis
>Jimi Hendrix (though I'm personally not a huge fan)
>Pink Floyd
>The Velvet Underground
>Godspeed You! Black Emperor
If you asked /mu/ a lot of them would probably say
>Radiohead
>Neutral Milk Hotel
>Animal Collective
>King Crimson
>My Bloody Valentine
>Talking Heads
>Captain Beefheart and his Magic Band
>Swans
>Death Grips

[Anonymous No.14969918]

>>14967303
That would be like explaining what makes a food to be visual, smell and taste good.

It comes down to personal experience and subjetivity.

A masterpiece can be very boring or sublime depending on your education.
A Bach piece to an illiterate would sound like noise, while to a musician could evoque the most deep feelings no other artists have.

Try to make a high schooler read Shakespeare and he will despise you.

You're literally asking what makes a girl atractive.

It literally boils down to art pieces that make you feel emotions.
A real art piece make you wanna cry and laught but also makes you think about deep human eternal issues.

But then we're argueing about diferent personal tastes.

[Anonymous No.14969926]

>>14964897
>objective under my terms
so it's subjective. You're an actual moron

[Anonymous No.14970174]

>>14965878
I think you’re absolutely right but there’s the issue of a cultural factor which provides a character and structure to art which would still be lacking if we were to have “better” education. It’s simply not a matter of education, but a quality education in which guidance is provided by a taste giving elite. Right now, what we have in the West is a decentralized matrix of art which appeals to various clans but is not hierarchically oriented to any qualitative degree. Another anon mentioned North Korean paintings and that’s honestly a good example because they’re such a rigid example of a hierarchically organized art education. That’s not to say that we should be North Korea, but I do mean that education not fostered to those who are talented and not disseminated in a formalized and hierarchically ordered manner by an cultural-artistic elite is futile.

[Anonymous No.14970183]

>>14970174
>dude, muh gatekeepers
nah, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.14970203]

>>14970183
Okay care to offer an actually nuanced viewpoint that contradicts mine?

[Anonymous No.14970237]

>>14970203
gatekeepers taste is trash.

Most of the literary fiction that the elite loves is dog shit garbage.

A lot of the best films from the critiques, while technically good, are emotionally empty.

Like Apocalyse now, is a boring shitty movie, that critics love because muh cynematography and light tricks.

A lot of elite gatekeeper art is pretentious and sterile and boring as fuck art.

Like Absalom Absalom from Faulkner, is the most boring trash I've ever read, but literary professors masturbate to it, because muh elite prose while the story was confusing (because of being an antitrama) and the plot is garbage, the characters are flat psychologically.

The plot and entertainment value of Absalom Absalom is trash.

>inb4 you're a pleb

[Anonymous No.14970399]

>>14970237
I actually agree with you. I just don’t think we have a cultural-artistic elite. We hardly have a culture. If you look at America, for example, it’s hard to argue with the fact it’s mostly females, homosexuals, and critics who are the tastemakers. That’s not a cultural-artistic elite. It’s not even a culture. If anything, it’s something that takes root in the absence of culture. I’m talking about having a genuine artistic elite which are elevated by and within a culture and which give shape to its form and not some hegemony of decentralized critical theorists who thrive in the absence of hierarchy, which is basically what we have now.

[Anonymous No.14970425]

>>14970399
It's part of the kali yuga left wing side of the marxist left side of the historical pendulum.

As such, it just happens we're in the degenerate stage.
But all points that people are yearning for tradition, at least in the west.

As such, people are not longer being brainwashed by the marxist elites, but there's a push back from the alt right on the internet, which is having a resurgence of tradition.

This is why they're ramping up the censorship on social media.

But the truth doesn't need to be pushed to be truth.
It's only the leftist marxists lies that need indoctrination to be pushed as truth.

They can't control the internet.

[Anonymous No.14970445]

>>14964840

[Anonymous No.14970485]

>>14966174
Are you unironically like 50 or something? How are you this out of touch to think any of those criticize the most trivial aspects of some intentionally hazed-out b-side?

[Anonymous No.14970490]

>>14970425
I don’t see this at all to be honest. Sure, there’s a small and generally ineffective resurgence in small corners of the internet but that’s about it. The masses are asses same as before.

[Anonymous No.14970494]

>>14970490
you need to see the bigger implications of the trump election.

Globalism is dead.

[Anonymous No.14970528]

>>14970494
I have to strongly disagree that Trump represents any sort of restoration to traditional civilization but I don’t want to derail the art thread. The fact remains no good art is being created in 2020.

[Anonymous No.14970551]

>>14970528
Because the removal of art standarts was a goal of the elites, to morally bankrupt the west.

[Anonymous No.14970552]

>>14969918
I thought you were arguing for objectivity.

[Anonymous No.14970557]

>>14970552
There are objective standart.

Like there's even proper facial measures and proportions to tell a girl is hot.

But you can have a top tier hot supermodel and still not find her atractive.

[Anonymous No.14970566]

>>14970494
Globalism isn't dead, but I do hope people begin actually questioning it regarding the long-term.

[Anonymous No.14970576]

>>14970566
No, It would take me a long explanation, but is dead.

Corona killed it.
The election of trump was the turning point for the dead of globalism.

But corona killed it.
People in the US were redpilled heavily when everything the official media told them was truth.

They started to question if the MSM was real, because the MSM told them hillary was gonna win by 99%

[Anonymous No.14970583]

>>14966371
If that weeb kitsch is a cap from the said movies then good grief, it has a subtlely of a Kinkade piece. Anime autists are neoclassical metal guitarists of visual arts.

[Anonymous No.14970592]

Art has been politicized and destroyed.

This is what happens under socialism.

[Anonymous No.14970595]

>>14970583
Nah, his movies are good for the medium (2D animation).

Japan is the only one who cares for 2D animation.
The west has completelly forgotten 2D animation.

[Anonymous No.14970657]

>>14964840
Mein Kampf
Seriously, the denial of objective beauty caused this and the discontinuation of teaching classical language has caused this decline. Keeping absurdists, relativists, and other deniers of objectivity out of school councils and administrations will improve standards. Acknowledging standards exist in the first place is the first step towards improvement.

[Anonymous No.14970661]

>>14970657
This picture is incredible

[Anonymous No.14970765]

>>14965083
>>14965126
Wait, this is the "art" of the creator of the graphic? lel this explains so much.

[Anonymous No.14970809]

>>14964840
Why would you want to bring arts and culture to what it once was? Those books and paintings didn't disappear. We can still read them. Make new shit. It's not like the fundamentals (human condition) have changed, anyway. Yes I know this is a bait thread about that schizoid who thinks everything after Bouguereau was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.14970827]

>>14970809
forgot pic
the dude (bougeureau) admitted he was just churning out soulless art for money from tasteless rich people btw lmao
>>14965083
If you want millions of artworks produced in this style with this subject matter, go to China. It's one of the like four genres of painting which are allowed by the government in their academies and official art galleries. It's fucking dull.
>>14970661
it really says a lot about our society

[Anonymous No.14970841]

>>14964897
Who judges whether it has a person in it

[Anonymous No.14970851]

>>14969174
Miles Davis and Captain Beefheart are arguably on par with Mozart during their masterpieces, but the rest ain't close. This isn't classicwanking, Mozart just genuinely is really fuckin good.

[Anonymous No.14970852]

>>14970827
realism in painting went out of fashion because of photography.

The average person had not reason to spend a month in such paintings when a photograph or whatever shit they had on 1901 was much faster and better than any bougueareu shit.

So it went out of fashion.

Niggas don't know art history.

[Anonymous No.14970890]

>>14970852
>realism in painting went out of fashion because of photography.
That ain't realism. Realism is a whole different genre of painting which emphasises, well, real things, like carpenters covered in sawdust or soldiers unceremoniously piled up after a battle. It's also generally got a different painting style. But I admit that's just autism and I know what you mean.
You're wrong tho. Firstly, photos existed with clarity in the 1860s, let alone the 1880s. Secondly, when Bougeureau's style was the most popular it was also the most unfashionable. It was beloved by the masses but hated by artsy circles. Remember this nigger was painting well after Turner. It was just seen as unimaginative and soulless, which, quite frankly, I agree with. If anything, his image has been rehabilitated since then.
Come, anon, follow me down the path which leads away from Mount Stupid.

[Anonymous No.14970902]

>>14970890
here's realism because i have the big autism
this was painted in 1868

[Anonymous No.14970917]

>>14970890
I understand, but niggas need to realize it was boring, it was just the average style every academy was shitting out.

Such paintings were seen as generic, just like today we see realism in videogames as generic.

They're generic is that's the only thing you have seen in painting for centuries.

The whole urinal shit was a mockery of such art.

It's a lot like the whole indie games versus AAA shit we see today.
People feel more inspired by undertale than by AAA realistic games.

It's always the split between the ones who are just copy imitators of nature and the ones who make cartoons from imagination.

Neither is better than the other.
There's plenty of anime waifus done with the same or even better skills than the average realistic painting from XIX century.

[Anonymous No.14971063]

>>14970917
Do you think today’s art is not boring then? Do you have any specific examples that you like? Even Dada in its mockery art stands heads and shoulders of what I see today to be honest.

[Anonymous No.14971085]

>>14971063
Again, the art forms that still try to be more traditionals and have some aesthetic traditions, are film, videogames and animation (anime), progressive rock music.

You can call me a weeb, but that doesn't mean those genres still have some legacy of art traditions.

Yes, 99% of anime is garbage, but every few years there some anime that can be considered good.

Just like joker was a good film that was made these days.

They still follow some of the objective rules they used to have in the XIX century.

Unless you're measure of good art is whatever garbage the gatekeepers of some old literature department in harvard think is good art.

>but modern art sucks is not at the level of muh geniuses
There was also a lot of garbage back then.

Literally nostalgia googles the thread.

[Anonymous No.14971102]

>>14971063
I'll add.

There's still good art being made today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HnhPNS0rqM

Look up castlevania SOTN, one of the jewels from the videogame industry.
I wont call it better than beethoven works, but still is a masterpiece, and follows a lot of the standart objective measures of quality of the XIX century.

[Anonymous No.14971368]

>>14971085
>>14971102
Okay. I should’ve been specific. Do you see any good Western art? I’m specifically thinking in the realm of painting and similar fine arts. I’m not being snarky. When I look around, I really don’t and being a somewhat beginner artist myself I struggle to identify an institution or even just a style that I grab onto to help give form to my learning.

[Anonymous No.14971404]

>>14971368
Again, fine art is trash, dunno why you focus on such garbage.

They don't care for traditional standarts.

You can still make money and make great traditional art in places like the art renewal center.

Again, today major artistic art forms that still focus on skill are videogames, film, animation, genre fiction and progressive music.

Nobody is stopping you from learning to become another realism master, or learn to compose like bach.

Even today, we have plenty of youtube material with good enough informations, we have professionals selling courses on diferent platforms, almost every book with modern theory is on amazon, or ancient public domain theory books today is on several pages like archive.org or project guttemberg.

Nobody stops nobody today from learning the same craft bach studied.

It's even easier today to be discovered by mainstream society than anything older musicians could even dream off.

Even minor arstist and bands that nobody knows can have an international fanbase.

If anything is easier for the best art today with the internet to reach the top instead of waiting 200 years to be popular.

[Anonymous No.14971416]

>>14970827
Buggero

[Anonymous No.14971419]

>>14971416
Boogero

[Anonymous No.14971435]

>>14964840
>The possibilities of art decrease as unbelief in God increases
Amazing.

[Anonymous No.14971442]

>>14971435
Why was Greek sculpture and literature so good then

[Anonymous No.14971446]

>>14971442
boom gottem
yes i am samefagging

[Anonymous No.14971455]

>>14971442
because you're comparing the surviving works of hundreds of years and even thousands of years with the average artist today.

retard.

[Anonymous No.14971460]

>>14971404
So do you believe fine art has always been trash?

My talent and affinity is for drawing and painting so that’s where I’m sticking to. I simply have no interest for film, music, or video games nor am I particularly interested in realism although I can’t say I hate it. It’s just not my thing. I disagree with almost everything else you said to be honest. Skill is essential, but should not be the main feature in my honest opinion and yes, it’s true that there’s a tremendous accessibility of art education and markets today via the internet but that drowning out is part of the problem. When I look around, I’m overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of trash which doesn’t speak to me at all. It’s not just a matter of mere technical proficiency, it’s the fact that there’s no resonance or form to modern the fine arts. There’s nothing inspiring or even remotely radical for that matter. The internet allows for a massive wave of sheer quantity but at the end of the day it’s all formless and lifeless, without any orienting principle. Video games and modern music genuinely feel no different to me.

[Anonymous No.14971478]

>>14971442
It’s not explicitly true that they didn’t believe in God but it’s also because they believed in many gods that the Greek world was enchanted in ways others haven’t been since. Ancient peoples went through their lives in near constant religious intoxication and had customs and experience which gave structure to supernatural experience. Our atheist culture is hardly like that of Ancient Greece.

[Anonymous No.14971479]

Holy fuck this thread is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.14971480]

>>14971442
The same thing happened in Greece though. We began our Hellenistic age around 1800, when art became increasingly irreligious and devolved into schizophrenic bourgeois trash. Greece became culturally irrelevant after the Hellenistic age which is what we are fast approaching.

[Anonymous No.14971482]

>>14971460
Do u think mediocre art was uncommon or tasteless art was also uncommon back then?

pornography existed in those ancient roman murals that survived today.
there's plenty of old clay jars from roman era that are basically the same as modern day hentai.

Literally read on the hitler crussade on degenerate jew pornography.

The first novels after the bible were printed were basically erotica fanfiction.
The first bestsellers in 1800 were basically romance novels, there was even some art critics that decried the current states of affairs because women were tasteless because they enjoyed some crappy romance novels in 1880 or something.

We don't remember such garbage art and therefore we only remember the good stuff.

But there was plenty of garbage made back then by mediocre artists.

Even today people still talk about the old glorious days of SNES and PSX videogames, and how modern PS4 games are garbage.

Literally nostalgia googles.

[Anonymous No.14971490]

>>14969174
>>The Beatles
>shallow mass-consumerist pop band
Are you FUCKING serious right now?

[Anonymous No.14971501]

>>14971480
The Hellenistic age was the only age Greece was relevant. Their megarelevance during the Hellenistic age simply made their earlier works retroactively important because their culture during the Hellenistic era was obviously made up of pre-Hellenistic works.
>>14971478
The idea that myths were bullshit made up to explain natural phenomena is a Greek idea. I accept they were more religious than nowadays though, but I doubt it has anything to do with their art which we disproportionally reward when it is humanistic rather than religious (e.g. homer over hesiod).
>>14971455
Based if you truly believe that Greek art was on the whole shit for not being Christian.

[Anonymous No.14971518]

>>14971501
retards don't know about those greek jars with porn on them.

[Anonymous No.14971531]

>>14970827
I'm not a Bougeureau fan either but that pic is a bit dishonest, as if most painters didn't do dozens of nudes too.

>they're all bathers
It's just an excuse to paint a naked woman.

[Anonymous No.14971546]

>>14971404
>Fine art is shit lol
>but not video games and genre fiction
I genuinely despise your presence on this board.

[Anonymous No.14971552]

>>14971501
You have no idea what you’re talking about and the reason we appreciate their more humanist stuff is because we’re the humanist faggots, not because they were. Their myths weren’t made up bullshit to explain natural phenomena nor did they believe Zeus was a literal muscle man.

[Anonymous No.14971563]

>>14971552
Sorry, you misunderstood me. If you go against the grain and truly prefer the religious stuff over the humanistic stuff, then that's respectable, even if I totally disagree. I assumed you agreed with the consensus and prefer shit like Homer over Hesiod and love that one bronze statue of the boxer at rest.

[Anonymous No.14971581]

>>14971546
again, 99% of everything is garbage.

99% of paintings are garbage.
99% of literature is garbage.
99% of clasical music is garbage.

the average clasical and baroque composer was not more talented than the mediocre musicians we have today.

There wasn't such every artists in the baroque was bach level and everyone back then were more educated than today.

Bach literally died unknown and was only discovered like 80 years by some musician in a library.

Same with beethoven, he wasn't considered the top tier genius we see him today.
He was seen as that crazy composer who was deaf and make some music that is shit because is diferent from the Vivaldi, mozart, heiden tradition.

Just like vangogh killed himself because he was a loser.

The average peasant in the baroque was listening to crappy town balads by some bards that made covers of popular songs.

Just like most artists today live off making covers in some tavern off popular songs.

Retard.

[Anonymous No.14971585]

>>14971102
Mindless entertainment is not art.

[Anonymous No.14971590]

>>14971585
there's from time and time again, some anime or game that are great.

[Anonymous No.14971599]

>>14971581
at least learn English before you burden this thread with a midwit's understanding of art history

[Anonymous No.14971605]

ATTENTION: THE ESL FAGGOT GOT FILTERED BY FAULKNER AND UNIRONICALLY LISTENS TO ANIMU OSTS

[Anonymous No.14971607]

>>14971599
Shut the fuck up nigger.

There was hundreds if not thousands of mediocre composers in the baroque that made music not better than popular music today.

[Anonymous No.14971608]

>>14971605
Anyone who willingly reads Faulkner has been filtered by Faulkner.

[Anonymous No.14971615]

>>14971581
>again, 99% of everything is garbage.
Uh no, you blatantly made the quote "Fine art is garbage don't focus on such trash". You said nothing about percentages. Going back on that makes you come off as a disingenuous coward.
>the average clasical and baroque composer was not more talented than the mediocre musicians we have today.
No, that is objectively false for composers for composing is a skillset in of itself, and "modern music" could mean quite literally anything thus the skill floor is nonexistent.

The rest of your post is incoherent rambling that has nothing to do with my post so I'm willingly choosing to ignore it.

[Anonymous No.14971617]

ESL guy needs to stfu fr

[Anonymous No.14971625]

>>14971615
There was mediocrity centuries ago.

People from centuries ago weren't suddenly all artistic genius.
The average IQ of white people in 1905 was 65 if we used 2020 standarts.

Genius back then would have an average IQ of 130 today.
(130 IQ in 2020 is like 160 IQ in 1900)

[Anonymous No.14971632]

>>14971102
>There's still good art being made today.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HnhPNS0rqM


videogames are virtual toys you dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.14971640]

Imagine thinking art has no objective standards

[Anonymous No.14971645]

>>14971632
The average artist working on the videogame industry (AAA) has traditional skills, nigger.

They can easily replicate baroque art.

[Anonymous No.14971670]

>>14971645
>missing the point this hard
can you please go back to whatever board you came from

[Anonymous No.14971693]

>>14971645

[Anonymous No.14971714]

>>14971670
>>14971693
why do u nigger thinks that realism was forgotten for ever and is ancient magic?

Have u even googled comtemporary realism?

https://www.gallery1261.com/show/gallery-1261-contemporary-realism

Like there's artist today that are realists?

Most of them work already on the game, film and animations industries.
But there's also a comtemporary realism art movement.

Just like there's neobarroque music.

[Anonymous No.14971742]

>>14971714
That shit is gay that is why they work for videogames and other dumb shit

[Anonymous No.14971745]

>>14971632
Toys are art.

[Anonymous No.14971746]

>>14971742
as oposed to being a faggot working in some art museum that are closing because nobody goes to museums today?

[Anonymous No.14971758]

>>14971563
Yeah, I did. Sorry. I what makes you use Homer vs Hesiod as examples of humanist vs religious? I like Homer quite a lot and Homer doesn’t seem to me to be explicitly humanist in my honest opinion.

[Anonymous No.14971761]

>>14971745
i don´t get why the bugman mentality is the norm with amerimutts, saying stupid shit like toys and videogames are art, fucking kys

[Anonymous No.14971780]

>>14971761
Why do u retards love to compare mediocre artists today with the best of the best of centuries ago?

Yes, games are art.
Chess and go are art.
They're major artistic archievements.

Chess is as important for human history as the best literature.

[Anonymous No.14971797]

>>14971761
I'm not American. The idea that toys are art is a relatively new one in that it's probably a post-sixties thing but it's really not that new to academia.
>>14971758
It's the classic example. Homer tightly focuses on human issues like social obligation and human emotion like jealousy. The Iliad is even famous for conspicuously and deliberately removing fantastical elements. The bit where the horses begin speaking is so weird that some people thought it was an interpolation.
The Odyssey obviously has a bunch more supernatural shit, but even then it's not really explicitly religious. Polyphemus represents a monstrous perversion of human hospitality. Of course religion plays a big role in social obligation (and vice versa), but y'know. It's not Hesiod.

[Anonymous No.14971800]

>>14971746
do you think the people who paint the paintings hanging in the wall on museums work for the museums as guards or something? are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.14971804]

>>14971800
even in death they still serve

[Anonymous No.14971812]

>>14971800
fine art is a dead art form.

Any major movie and videogame produces more money than the entire art industry.

GTAV produced almost the same money as the book industry.

Games are the major form of the XXI century.
As film was in the 50s.
As poetrhy was in the XIX century.
As opera was in the 18 century.

[Anonymous No.14971815]

>>14971812
show me a movie or videogame that makes 67 billion dollars you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.14971828]

>>14971815
the book industry produces 1.5 billion bollars retard.

GTAV alone made 800 millions.
A marvel movie produces 1.2 billion.

As a whole the game industry produces several times more than the music, art, and book industry combined.

[Anonymous No.14971837]

>>14971797
Interesting. I’ve actually never heard that example but I can’t say that I agree with it. I find a lot of supernatural, even metaphysical themes and instances in Homer both the Odyssey and the Iliad. It just so happens that most of the characters are also humans. I could see how it’s interpreted that way more so than Hesiod though for sure.

[Anonymous No.14971838]

>>14971812
>fine art is a dead art form.
t. nigger who probably worships pinecone

[Anonymous No.14971851]

>>14971815
the fuck work of art has made 67 billion dollars

[Anonymous No.14971854]

>>14971828
god damn how dense are you?
the art market is 67 billion
money is meaningless metric anyway
go back to fortnite kiddo

[Anonymous No.14971857]

>>14971761
You said it yourself. It’s because we’re mutts. We have no clearly defined culture, let alone cultural elite that gives shape to real art. It’s the same reason you see a lot of cultural-political movements take shape in America that are absurd to Europeans.

[Anonymous No.14971864]

>>14971812
>50's movies
wow bad taste alert

[Anonymous No.14971876]

>>14971838
Why do u think I care about a dead industry that can't make enough money and survives from goverment grants and scamming rich retards?

>>14971854
nice, because the videogame industry is 160 billions.

>>14971864
Some of clasical cinema are masterpieces, retard.

[Anonymous No.14971880]

>>14971828
The restaurant industry makes a lot of money too. You could make an argument that’s art, but that’s obviously not what we’re talking about here.

[Anonymous No.14971890]

>>14971880
food can be considered art.

if you go to /ck/ they should recommend some chefs that make art with food.

food is the art of the taste and smell senses.
just like perfumes are the art of the smell sense.

[Anonymous No.14971897]

>>14964840
There was no decline. Charts like your pic are made by people who don't know where to find genuine artistry in the world today, because their parents and peers stopped caring to read about cultural developments and changes in the world.

[Anonymous No.14971901]

>>14965714
This is retarded. Art was a profession more than a vocation until the 1800s, and now you are saying artists treat it as merely a job?

[Anonymous No.14971906]

>>14971897
So where can we find genuine artistry? I would seriously like to know because I don’t really see it. >>14971368

[Anonymous No.14971924]

>>14971876
>Some of clasical cinema are masterpieces, retard.
only stubborn amerilard boomers think cinema peaked in the fucking 50's lmao

[Anonymous No.14971930]

Jesus fucking Christ this thread, you're on the internet, just go around and search for art, there's more stuff now than in any other era. Just from simple statistics, there is more great art now than in any other time, fucking neckbeards fixated on 1800's, guess what THERE ARE PEOPLE MAKING THAT RIGHT FUCKING NOW. There are people making better stuff, within the same style and also in other styles, mediums, whatever you have. Stop being dumb and repeating dogwhistles, the only decline here is your inability to look around.

[Anonymous No.14971944]

>>14971924
No because there's good films that are made every decade.

maybe not every year there's a masterpiece, but every few years there's some masterpiece being made.

[Anonymous No.14971957]

>>14971906
>So where can we find genuine artistry?
Wherever artists and specialists congregate to break new ground in some emerging craft. If that's not enough for you, seek out art critics who can give you names.

People have this strange tendency to keep looking towards places like museums to find modern art even though these places lost their holding power decades ago.

[Anonymous No.14971981]

>>14971957
retards can't even google shit, like top games, music, films from the last 20 years.

[Anonymous No.14971990]

>>14971957
I have done this, anon. There’s nothing that’s remotely interesting. I’m still an art noob so maybe I haven’t looked hard enough but fine arts at my University and in journals which I read are just so utterly predictable and rife with the SJW stuff that has become a meme but in my experience is ultimately true. The only current day artist I actually like is Richter and even then, I don’t like most of his stuff and I can’t help but feel like he’s propped up for overtly political reasons.

[Anonymous No.14972004]

>>14971990
>fine art
that's a meme industry, even in /ic/

weeb shit waifu illustrations are more interesting than modern fine art.

[Anonymous No.14972015]

>>14964934
perhaps you are joking but I am pretty sure you're correct

[Anonymous No.14972055]

>>14971435
post hoc ergo propter hoc

[Anonymous No.14972124]

>video games
>children's entertainment media
>"art"

[Anonymous No.14972133]

>>14972124
So are the grim brothers, disney and other child literature not art because they're child entertainment?

[Anonymous No.14972190]

>>14964928
The philosopher, the well read, the religious whose faiths are not something made up already share that metaphysics - so back to the post you replied, I kind of agree.

[Anonymous No.14972211]

>>14964840
Nietzsche's “The Greek State”, and "Birth of tragedy".

[Anonymous No.14972227]

I know /lit/ stands for literature, but putting "standards" in an axe without values and stating this is some kind of argument is beyond retarded.

[Anonymous No.14972353]

>>14972227
you got a problem with standards in my axe i put an axe in your fuckin head

[Anonymous No.14972397]

>>14965345
In the modern capitalist world art has been condemned as uneconomic, not much needs to be discussed hope it's obvious - but something that really needs to be pointed out is the shame element, when something is labeled uneconomic people who engage in that become fools and shame is brought to them and with art this is truly visible.

[Anonymous No.14972602]

Is there anyone in this thread who is seriously pretending this is not patently true?
I thought everyone agreed deep down that art has become shit, but say otherwise to be accepted in smart circles.

[Anonymous No.14973866]

>>14966351
You're a fucking retard. Nutrition in most contexts (including this one) refers to human nutrition. Stop being purposefully obtuse.

[Anonymous No.14973876]

>>14966559
Schoenberg's Principles of Harmony. It is not a 12 tone/ serial work, it analyses tonal harmony.
Also that trip fag is a retard

[Anonymous No.14973909]

>>14966559

Schoenberg "Principles of Harmony"

[Anonymous No.14974271]

>>14967112
This is a very ahistorical analysis of art and I don't believe you've seen a real painting

[Anonymous No.14974289]

>>14970592
The monarchies were pretty good at politicizing art, are they socialist?

[Anonymous No.14974305]

>>14970827
>If you want millions of artworks produced in this style with this subject matter, go to China. It's one of the like four genres of painting which are allowed by the government in their academies and official art galleries. It's fucking dull.

That's the joke man. L'art pompier

[Anonymous No.14974311]

>>14970852
>realism in painting went out of fashion because of photography.

Brainlet take

[Anonymous No.14974315]

>>14964840
Who determines the standards?

[Anonymous No.14974320]

>>14969174
idk man there's a feeling that classical music captures that modern music hasn't been able to replicate. It captures the feeling of humanity at it's best when people mingle harmoniously and the world reflects a sense of optimism.

[Anonymous No.14974342]

>>14971890
Saying something is the "art of" something doesn't actually qualify it as art.

[Anonymous No.14974360]

>>14974320
This is just what people expect to think about classical music. There is no rigorous philosopy for why classical music is better than modern music. No one can even justify why classical and modern are compared when modern music is closer to folk

[Anonymous No.14974402]

>>14964840
Greatest (you) farm of all time, OP

[Anonymous No.14974552]

Would anyone else here want to form a bible reading group? I've been putting off reading it for a long time and I think I'd be more likely to finish if it was with a group.

[Anonymous No.14974607]

>>14974552
Go to church you dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.14974678]

>>14966495
You outed yourself as not knowing anything about music.
Jacob Collier is literally being studied by the top academics in music and there are maybe 3 people in the world that understand his compositions.
I challenge you to explain how "Moon River", the arrangement you linked, is composed. If you take time to look up the transcripts and whatnot, and study music theory, you're gonna notice his arrangements are some of the most complex music ever made in this planet.

The fact it sounds agreeable to your ears and reminds you of a jazzy pop music is because he wants to show that can be done while still maintaining a highly complex harmonic/melodic/rhythmic structure. I'm not saying you can't like Bach or Mozart, but you really need to stop embarrassing yourself when it comes to talking about Jacob Collier. You're clearly out of your depth here.

[Anonymous No.14974738]

>>14966495
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zua831utwMM

I like that he uses that tradition of jazz of arranging simple songs because it becomes immediately obvious how much he incremented them, at least in some level. But unless you're a top tier musician you're probably not gonna understand shit about what's happening harmonically, the micro rhythms or micro tones in the melody and etc.

Look up his interviews. He has literally the most absolute absolute pitch I have ever seen in my life, and is a complete virtuoso in every instrument I have ever seen him play (and I've seen him play about 20 wildly different ones). In this video he only plays a melodica, but tell me you've ever seen someone play it like this. He is some kind of extreme savant. Once in a century or maybe once in a millennium type.

You are fixated on Bach, which is not bad because Bach is probably the second greatest musical genius of history, but Jacob Collier is sort of like Magnus Carlsen. He is something that could only exist in this century. From his birth he was trained to be the most absolute robotic laser focused machine, being exposed to the absolute ultimate music theory of every age, and the most high level music training. The same way it's reasonable to expect no chess player of any time in mankind could beat magnus carlsen 10 times in a row, the same is true musically for jacob collier. It's a wonder a guy like him managed to exist in the current world of shitty music.

Western music evolved harmony throughout history, and eastern music evolved microtones and complex tempos. Of course there is overlap and exchange here and there, but Jacob Collier is the first person to successfully mix this in the highest levels of theoretical understanding.

[Anonymous No.14975029]

If it's getting to the point where people can't even understand the concept of subjectivity, I'd say it's safe to guess the average IQ of this board is single digit.

[Anonymous No.14975093]

>>14969165
A good example of a Christian attacking art and culture.

Let me guess, profane is just another term you christolefties use when something is better and superior?

https://artrenewal.org/Article/Title/the-philosophy-of-arc

For those who want to do some reading on real art!

https://artrenewal.org/Article/Search

[Anonymous No.14975104]

>>14974678
>>14974738
Show me some independent article, or video which claims the exact same thing you do.

[Anonymous No.14975112]

>>14970827
>It's fucking dull.
If you think the human body, nature scenes, historical scenes are dull, then perhaps there is something wrong with you.

[Anonymous No.14975225]

>>14974305
Shiiiet, I didn't get it. Still, it's an interesting coincidence that that kind of realistic art depicting workmen working is one of the main genres of official art in Chinkland. Good old Communism.
>>14975112
You need to go to one of these art galleries, anon. Then you'll understand.

[Anonymous No.14975228]

>>14975093
I don't like this boomer roleplaying

[Anonymous No.14975230]

>>14964934
what the fuck
ive never realized it

[Anonymous No.14975644]

>>14974678
I don’t know the first thing about music theory, but this guy’s music just doesn’t sound good to me. I’ll concede that he’s pretty talented and it’s highly complex I guess, but that doesn’t really make it good music in my very unprofessional opinion.

[Anonymous No.14975772]

>>14975093
>christolefties
you are a mental midget, which also explains why you like Bougereau

artrenewal are boomer faggots whose emotional sensibility was honed by american popculture, small wonder they fellate l'art pompier as if it already weren't a symptom of degeneration