[ 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: 16 KB, 474x630, evola.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16356546 No.16356546 [Reply] [Original]

>In the majority of literary works, in short stories, dramas, and novels, the regime of residues persists, with its typical forms of subjective dissociation. Their constant background, rightly called the “fetishism of human relationships,” consists of the insignificant, sentimental, sexual, or social problems of insignificant individuals, reaching the extreme of dullness and banality in a certain epidemic type of American novel.
>When speaking of modern art, the first thing to mention is its “intimate” quality, typical of a feminine spirituality that wants nothing to do with great historic and political forces; out of morbid sensitivity (sometimes brought about by a trauma), it retreats into the world of the artist’s private subjectivity, valuing only the psychologically and aesthetically “interesting.” The works of Joyce, Proust, and Gide mark the extreme in this tendency in literature.

>> No.16356556

>>16356546
>doesn't like music
Yeah real sincere pal.

>> No.16356569

>>16356546
>evola doesn't like literature at all

No wonder /lit/ loves him

>> No.16358054

He's not wrong.

>> No.16358073

>>16356546
Reactionaries hate art. This is what the alt right don’t understand when they whine about right wing censorship in the arts. Your ideas are not welcome because they are anathema to art itself. Art by definition is subversive, transgressive, and progressive- and if reactionaries has their way art could not exist at all.

>> No.16358097

>>16358073
>art by MY definition is subversive
ftfy

>> No.16358104

>>16358097
Name a work of art that is not subversive in the context of its creation. I’ll wait.

>> No.16358105

>>16358073
No, reactionaries love art. They just don't love the modern conception of art, which is the exact same issue pointed out by Evola in relation to literature.

>> No.16358107

>>16358104
Jackie Chan

>> No.16358109

>>16358105
Reactionaries hated art all the way back to religious iconography.

>> No.16358110

>>16358104
my diary

>> No.16358111
File: 181 KB, 565x640, large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16358111

>>16358073
Evola was a literally an abstract painter you ignorant faggot

>> No.16358113

>>16358111
Awkward aping of a bygone style proves my point.

>> No.16358117

>>16358107
I know that’s the meme, but his style of film making, his break out into America, and the action comedy kung fu film we’re all subversive early on in his career.

>> No.16358120

>>16358113
they're from the 20s you ignoramus

>> No.16358125

>>16358111
Why is every fascist a failed artist?

>> No.16358128

>>16358120
70 years too late

>> No.16358133

>>16358109
You should open up a history book and read it before posting cringe

>> No.16358136

>>16358073
art is about beauty and discrimination, one thing being OBJECTIVELY better than another. any leftist engaging in art is cultivating their hidden fascist streak, that's why state socialism has to stamp out any creativity and replace it with trite propaganda, see the decline of soviet art from cubofuturism to socialist realism

the only subversive and transgressive art of the 21st century is Gas Chamber Pepe

>> No.16358139

>>16358125
Can't fail as an artist when jewish subversive artists are the arbiters

>> No.16358140

>>16356546
>implying Evola matters

>> No.16358145

>>16358133
Reactionaries read history books and think it’s possible to go backwards in time and retvrn to tradition despite material conditions being drastically different today.

>> No.16358147
File: 7 KB, 184x274, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16358147

>>16358139
this

>> No.16358148

>>16358139
The public are the arbiters.

>> No.16358149

>>16358111
he later rejected modernism, because it was contradictory to his new worldview.

>> No.16358151

>>16358139
>muh jooze
here we go again

>> No.16358153

>>16358149
he bailed on it when it became stale

>> No.16358155

I don’t get it, culture is based on meta narratives, myth, and fables. Those are stories. Literature is stories. I thought he was all about superior culture and pride and shit.

>> No.16358158

>>16358145
You should open up a history book and read it before posting cringe.
Really, stop digging yourself in deeper. Reactionaries don't want to go back in time, they want to recapture the essence of better times.

>> No.16358162
File: 118 KB, 1280x720, ohno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16358162

>>16358111

This reminds me of those creepy familiar-yet-amorphous AI renderings where you feel like you should be able to recognize a specific object in the picture but it's just off enough to not be anything in particular.

>> No.16358170

>>16358148
The public is retarded and just spews out what their overlords want them to think, so that too makes one unable to fail as an artist.

>>16358151
Yes, not my fault but theirs.

>> No.16358174

>>16358158
>they want to recapture the essence of better times.
Reactionaries hated the Mona Lisa, Shakespeare, Beethoven etc. You are simply wrong and deluded as all reactionaries are.

>> No.16358180

>>16358170
>The public is retarded and just spews out what their overlords want them to think
Those would be jacobites and modern day trump fanatics that believe pop is satanic.

>> No.16358181

>>16358174
>ur wrong because I say so
sure buddy, keep posting cringe

>> No.16358187

>>16358170
if only you said muh landlords

>> No.16358188

>>16358181
Those are historical facts, and yes reactionaries are cringe.

>> No.16358190

>>16358180
No, that would be the public. Including you, bugman.

>> No.16358194

it's bizarre cope that a leftist in 2020 can believe they still have any dominion over the transgressive in art

>> No.16358196

>>16358190
Yawn. History proves you wrong. Also reactionaries have never produced a great work of art.

>> No.16358197

>>16358188
No they're not, you're inventing your own history here and it's really cringy. You seem to know nothing about reactionaries.

>> No.16358198

>>16358196
You should open up a history book and read it before posting cringe

>> No.16358208

the art of the reactionary Miyazaki is more influential than that of any contemporary leftist

>> No.16358210

>>16358194
the avant-garde of art now is clearly racist frog memes

>> No.16358211

>>16358197
>>16358198
I accept your concession. Just remember that Sam Hyde is anti-art per his own admission.

>> No.16358218

>>16358211
all transgressive artists are anti-art

>> No.16358227
File: 210 KB, 1080x1058, DE66A450-1FB8-40E8-BCB7-3DB78FF29F29.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16358227

>>16358218
Demonstrate this. I’ll wait.

>> No.16358229
File: 148 KB, 600x497, 1599852669945.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16358229

>when people think subversion = art
>they can't even understand how they worship the denigration of the human spirit and all that is holy and transcendent, replacing it with the most basic, contingent particles of human existence, and thereby casting the race further and further away from true insight

>> No.16358237

>>16358111
I see something that looks like an egg, a fish, a slightly burnt bagel and what seems to be either a bunny or a duck... is it a painting of him making breakfast?

>> No.16358241

>>16358155
he laments the loss of an aiming for something higher and eternal at a disregard of oneself in favor of the obscure and personal and overly (self-)sentimental. it's somewhat related to the whole theosophy / perennial philosophy shtick

>>16358104
that's a bit of a cheap trick because any piece of great art that's now in collective memory will have had something subversive (new) about it, yet that doesn't make novelty the only criterion of great art, it's in the nature of anything genuinely subversive to call on what was before, and you could well argue with evola that there's a runaway effect nowadays where novelty has become currency to an obscene degree and a sort of recalibration to what's been before is needed. the renaissance was both subversive and a harkening back to something has already been before

>> No.16358244

>>16358227
only after you present some transgressive contemporary art by a leftist (btw poop and cum smeared on a canvas is passe now)

>> No.16358245

>>16358218
They wouldn't be artists then

>> No.16358256

>>16356546
Do people actually believe this or do they just think it sounds cool because it takes a stand?

>> No.16358257

>>16358245
sure, in the sense that nowave musicians aren't musicians

>> No.16358266

>>16358257
Yes, rhetorical misdirection rather than a rigorous ontological distinction

>> No.16358269

>>16358211
>Sam Hyde
literally who?
And it's not a concession if I'm arguing with a simpleton who doesn't know what reactionaries are

>> No.16358276

>>16358269
>David is obscene!
>Iconography is idolatry!
Yawn. As I said, history proves you wrong. Cope.

>> No.16358279

>>16358276
You're arguing against your strawman version of reactionaries here. Until you find out what reactionaries are actually about (Evola wrote about them), kindly refrain from posting shit.

>> No.16358287

>>16358279
It’s no strawman, it’s historical fact. I see no difference between luddite cope and /pol/babies whining about Netflix casting a black actor in their children’s fantasy series.

>> No.16358296

>>16358287
> it’s historical fact
>I see no difference
So which is it, objective or subjective? Like I said, please refrain from posting shit. You're doing the exact same thing right wingers do when arguing against strawman lefties. Your imaginary reactionaries don't exist.

>> No.16358302

>>16358073
Behold, burger education in all its glory!

>> No.16358304

>>16358296
>which is it
Hardly mutually exclusive. In fact reactionary ideology is timeless which is why my point of reactionaries hating art is supported by both historical examples and modern day examples.

>> No.16358316

>>16358145
Marxists are the greatest reactionaries of all time, they don't only want to undo the enlightenment or something of that sort, no, they want to undo to go back to some theorized "primitive communism" they collectively hallucinated before the fucking agricultural revolution.

>> No.16358325

>>16358304
> reactionary ideology is timeless
Okay you're either a retarded burgerbug or I've been majorly baited. Probably both.

>> No.16358327

>>16358316
[citation needed]

>> No.16358330

>>16358325
I accept your concession

>> No.16358332

>>16358241
>he laments the loss of an aiming for something higher and eternal at a disregard of oneself in favor of the obscure and personal and overly (self-)sentimental. it's somewhat related to the whole theosophy / perennial philosophy shtick

Not him but when you put it this way it becomes much more palatable than his original quote. I definitely roll my eyes nowadays when I see something described as "autobiographical", or when people recommend me one of those dime-a-dozen modernist bricks about intellectually inbred upper-middle class pricks whining about the difficulties, the ennui of being an urban intellectual. Once you read like five of those the novelty wears off.

>> No.16358334

>>16358327
Why? I see no citations for the claims about reactionaries either.

>> No.16358339

>>16358330
You don't know what reactionaries are and now you don't know what a concession is? Yes, you really are retarded.

>> No.16358345

>>16358327
Are you seriously going to ask for a citation about communists wanting to return to "primitive communism"?

>> No.16358349

>>16358345
You said marxists want to “undo the enlightenment” whatever that means lol... gonna need a source on that

>> No.16358355

>>16358349
How the fuck did you manage to get that out of my post?

>> No.16358360

>>16358316
>*they want to go back to some theorized "primitive communism"

Fix'd.

>> No.16358361

>>16358355
It’s a direct quote
>they don't only want to undo the enlightenment

>> No.16358363

>parents grew up in ostblock country where even leftoids like Steinbeck had draconian limits on volume of prints and got selectively censored
>"akshully sweaty leftoids were historically very pro art"
oh right, I forgot, that either was or wasn't real communism depending on convenience

>> No.16358374

>>16358363
DDR?

>> No.16358376

>>16358374
czechoslovakia

>> No.16358452

I accept your concession.

>> No.16358466

>>16358104
The millions of oil portraits commissioned by their subjects that hang today in portrait galleries.

>> No.16358575

>>16358229
yada yada

>> No.16358715

>>16358363
Libertarian leftist were very pro-art, not autoritarian, like in Eastern Bloc with their fucking social realism. It is another thing that libertarian leftist are disorganised bunch of individualistic retards, that can do literally nothing. At least for me it looks so.
>t.dumb easternslav ESL

>> No.16358728

>>16358715
No they were anti-art. What they presented as art wasn't art but pure subversion.

>> No.16358741

It's clear from this thread that most moderners don't even grasp what is "art", traditionally. The traditional sense of the word is like a "mastery", which could apply to anything made with human hands. While the modern sense of the word has been diluted to something like "an image". Obviously any attempt to defend art against dissolution will fail, when argued on this modern premise.

>> No.16358752

>>16358728
>No they were anti-art. What they presented as art wasn't art but pure subversion.
For example? Also, what`s wrong with "subversion"? Dynamic art is better then stagnant. Also, don`t forget about that trend from second half of 20 century when art became more and more complex and esoteric even for experienced viewer. It`s completely normal. That you don`t like it is also completely normal.

>> No.16358758
File: 154 KB, 426x516, merchant realism 3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16358758

>>16358752
>what`s wrong with "subversion"?

>> No.16358762

>>16358741
Definition of art is more like "expression". If you create 12 beautifully made tables they aren`t art if they completely identical to all other tables. But if you made them different, if you express your soul through them, give them individuality - it is art. And this apply basically to everything.
>t.dumb easternslav ESL

>> No.16358766

>>16358758
Nevertheless i want an answer, and no, it is not a "jews". I am seriusly want to discuss this topic, it`s interesting.

>> No.16358771

>>16358762
It's highlysymptomatic of our cultural decadence that people have come to identify art with its object.

>> No.16358779

>>16358766
If you do not naturally see what is wrong with "subversion" then you are probably a lifeform to whom subversion comes naturally as it were, hence my attachement, in my previous post, of the picture of a lifeform to whom subversion is something normal and not weird to be taken for granted.

>> No.16358780

>>16358771
This guy knows.

>> No.16358795

>>16358073
The opposite is the case.
Can one who hates slop be equated with someone who hates food? Isn't it rather that his standards are much higher? And so are critics haters of art? Isn't the assumption that all art must be subject to subjectivity and in essence only praised for it's digressions and subversions a depreciation of art? After all, this equation of art reduces all kinds of standards, and when all art is equal to each other, there is no good, no bad art, nor is there any art at all, for that matter. Thus to equate the quality of Wagner to that of Soulja boy, because of some mechanic function of art, that fits into the "all is equal" agenda, is an insult to art itself, and all good artists, for that matter, since greatness was mistaken, and equated, with an abomination.

>> No.16358817

>>16358779
Under subversion you mean destruction of something fundamental, moral or so, yes?
I lowkey can`t understand how art can destruct moral or tradition, or something like this. It can only "deconstruct" things - like humans when we reflect on our lifes and what we done, and analyse it piece be piece. Nothing wrong with a bit of reflection and new angle of vision. It`s not oblige you go and make something incompatible with your moral principles.

>> No.16358826

>>16358817
Subversion is like an overturning or an undermining of a given structure or a given order. A destruction from within, or from below you can say. If I am slowly and secretly hacking away at the foundation of a house with my pickaxe while the residents are sitting inside unaware, then I am subverting that house.

>> No.16358892

>>16358109
No, you are mixing up religious zealots and reactionaries now.

>> No.16359983

>>16356546
based, some of these are still great works of art though