/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16510558]

When discussing aesthetics with a naively objectivist normie, this comes up:

>"it's all subjective bro"

How do you respond?

[Anonymous No.16510585]

"ok"

[Anonymous No.16510590]

>>16510558
"It is my subjective opinion that you are wrong."

[Anonymous No.16510597]

Is “it’s all subjective” a subjective or objective statement?

[Anonymous No.16510602]

>>16510558
Even if it is subjective you have to explain how consensus is formed. If beauty was absolutely subjective we wouldn't have a concept or a word for it and aesthetic standards would be utter chaos.
Yet we see schools, trends, motivated criticism, experimentation, schisms, controversies, evolution of craft and reflexion on past craft, all always involving large groups of people. Certainly there are common things in our appreciation for beauty.

The hard question is: what things? And how to tell them apart?

[Anonymous No.16510641]

Just offer them a nice hearty meal.

[Anonymous No.16510642]

>>16510602
Yes exactly. Subjectivism means that pedophilia can be as moral as charity and a lump of shit smeared on a wall as beautiful as the Venus de Milo. Intuitively there is a difference and even if it is difficult to articulate why not holding to that difference leads to a kind of nihilism.

[Anonymous No.16510690]

It is pretty subjective. What I always find ironic is that many of the people who promote objective morality and jizz over ancient statues are conservative Christians, whose ancestors during the early days of Christianity would’ve probably abhorred those very same statues for being pagan and for breaking the second commandment.

[Anonymous No.16510692]

>>16510558
Does this conversation by its very existence, not serve as adequate proof that aesthetics are subjective?

>>16510642
>Subjectivism means that pedophilia can be as moral as charity

Theres contexts in existence today in which pedophillia is considered moral by conventional standard—ever heard of the middle east? I dont think you understand the meaning of the word subjectivity.

>>16510602
Aesthetics are downstream from the tastes of artisocracy.

[Anonymous No.16510696]

>>16510558
It's quite easy to refute, just explain to them "your opinion is a corrupted one by modern political correctness which in every medium tells one that all opinions are equal... when they clearly are not. You're denying reality[/the human being] if you think beauty is merely subjective, and by that statement morality must be subjective too!"

Or some such.

[Anonymous No.16510710]

>>16510642
>Subjectivism means that pedophilia can be as moral as charity and a lump of shit smeared on a wall as beautiful as the Venus de Milo
the Greeks thought so (and penises were sacred - see the hermae)

read sextus empiricus

[Anonymous No.16510721]

>>16510558 (OP)
It's quite easy to refute, just explain to them "your opinion is a corrupted one by modern political correctness which in every medium tells one that all opinions are equal... when they clearly are not. You're denying reality[/the human being] if you think beauty is merely subjective, and by that statement morality must be subjective too! If one such highest of values is subjective, and accepting unconditionally your moral ought of things, then so must be morality in our treatment to and action in it. For the meaning of such an experience in beauty is altogether denied if it is left up to an equality of ought's, also."

Or some such. Just a bit simpler for normies, hence I put in the bit "it's denying reality" and go from there, perhaps using psychological terms which the modern man is familiar with, to better explain it. "You deny the fact of the human psyche, and moreover the meaning of beauty in it by your statement" is more appealing and understandable to them than "you deny the unique meaning of the human being, and moreover the meaning of beauty in the world by your statement".

[Anonymous No.16510727]

>>16510721
Start with the Greeks (not youtube bloggers)

[Anonymous No.16510742]

>>16510692
>Aesthetics are downstream from the tastes of artisocracy.
Still doesn't explain how the tastes of aristocracy are formed. But a mostly true observation nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.16510868]

>>16510597
It is objective.

One should remember that even in the law of impartiality there remains an objective outlook. This manner of relating to ideas and forms is one of material perfection, of a specific character and relation to time which cannot accord perfection in the moment but also must not discount its becoming. In simple terms, we see this in the form, or formlessness, of the newspaper: a total image of the events of the world, presented without origin or prejudice, to which we might respond to each event in a step process. Great catastrophes are eliminated through the means of vision, and thereby each event can lead us closer to perfection. Hidden within the newspaper is its opinion section, where the character of the writers is revealed with a similar characterlessness, and where rationalism may be abandoned as a sort of confession.

The reason why this is the case may become apparent if we situate it next to a total metaphysical world, a world of the elements and the violence of the gods. A simple image is that of Empedocles, of a universe which breathes, devours itself towards the perfect unity of the elements or their fatal destruction (or more correctly, before which all things are destroyed in this war of the elements). The world of the Chimera or the simple amphibian living in paradise. One who experiences the greatest catastrophe cannot have another, so in the theological catastrophe of the New World it becomes paramount that man equate his worlds with neither pole of elemental order coming to completion.

The artistic law of the era is of this same form. Art holds an explicit character of its rationalising boundaries. A blob of paint is formed in the middle of an exhibition room, and next to it the label informs the viewer how the artist has historicised all of the world and time in this single image. In one sense, Malevich was correct, the capture of beauty through skill and the perfection of its representation is already of the levelling process, the soul of art is depleted at the beginning of the modern era. The peasant figure is sold off like grain tariffs for the political romance of the bourgeoisie. And yet, the early images indicate a new form of art, of which the character was eventually lost - paradoxically, too strong to be endured. Our art is of the world of encirclement, of criticism and the perfection of the idea of the artistic, we even see the conservative holding to this aesthetic law in his reformatory techniques of beauty and the L'art pour l'art. A truth reduced to its bare functioning. The blobs of paint thrown at a canvas are merely the opinion section of this greater formlessness. One may have beauty so long as the violence of the world is contained completely within the psyche, so long as its form of beauty is negated, in total opposition to the myth.

In another sense, a myth may be elevated as a replacement for Christian doctrine, as in the myth of Danae.

[Anonymous No.16510875]

>>16510727
I did anon, what makes you think my statement is silly? I thought what I said fitted pretty well with exactly what Aristotle said in his Poetics, though I don't strictly subscribe to his theories on art, some of what he says on it is at least undeniable.

[Anonymous No.16510883]

>>16510868
get a load of this guy

[Anonymous No.16510933]

>>16510721
>>16510875
>your opinion is a corrupted one by modern political correctness which in every medium tells one that all opinions are equal... when they clearly are not
Politically correct discourses are very absolutist and dogmatic a lot of the time - the very existence of the prescription "you MUST think this" "you CAN'T say that" etc. Relativism and absolutism are used strategically by all sides of politics (conservatives who dislike liberal ideological colonisation of Eastern Europe with gay rights stuff adopt value pluralist arguments). I don't think it is legitimate to equate 'subjectivism' with modernity either, when the debate has existed since time immemorial.
>You're denying reality[/the human being] if you think beauty is merely subjective
How does denying the primacy of a particular value judgement about an object deny the existence of the object itself? Even if the beauty is somehow objective, any one person's apprehension of it is not. Some people are repulsed by the human form, or disagree about which parts they find beautiful or aversive.
>If one such highest of values is subjective, and accepting unconditionally your moral ought of things, then so must be morality in our treatment to and action in it. For the meaning of such an experience in beauty is altogether denied if it is left up to an equality of ought's, also.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here but if you mean that people who talk about the subjectivity of art (often in a very moralistic tone) are often reticent to talk about the subjectivity of morality, then I agree.
>"You deny the fact of the human psyche, and moreover the meaning of beauty in it by your statement" is more appealing and understandable to them than "you deny the unique meaning of the human being, and moreover the meaning of beauty in the world by your statement".
I have no idea what this means.

[Anonymous No.16510963]

>>16510641
This still gets me.

[Anonymous No.16510985]

>>16510933
You're being disingenuous anon, when it is quite clear that the idea at least in modern Western society that "beauty is subjective" is merely the response to the liberal moral ought of egalitarianism taken to an extreme. Relativism is not being used ideologically or subversively here, it is quite literally just a moral thought in which a large mass of society have been trained to think.

>How does denying the primacy of a particular value judgement about an object deny the existence of the object itself? Even if the beauty is somehow objective, any one person's apprehension of it is not.
Anon you've horribly misunderstood me. I mean the human being phenomenologically, not as a sense-aesthetic outwardly. As in, you're denying the reality of human nature to play coy as if one thing is not more beautiful than another, and that above all you also deny morality if you deny any real intrinsic value to art. What action retains any value in and for man if in art its value is merely a character of fashion.

>I have no idea what this means.
Well that's a bruh moment, it is the same thing I said above but normies are more understanding of "psychologically humans see this as beautiful", for either sense-aesthetic or morality, rather than the idea beauty has some higher metaphysical place in the life of man which has normally been explained to them very simply and matter-of-factly in religion.

[Anonymous No.16510994]

>>16510721
>your opinion is a corrupted one by modern political correctness which ...
So are you saying that a sense of beauty can be altered by the environment a subject is born and raised in instead of being constant and consistent through time? Almost as if it was subjective or something?

[Anonymous No.16511000]

>>16510558
It's not all subjective, as through evolution we've been programed to see various things in a more positive manner.

[Anonymous No.16511010]

>>16510985
>You're being disingenuous anon, when it is quite clear that the idea at least in modern Western society that "beauty is subjective" is merely the response to the liberal moral ought of egalitarianism taken to an extreme.
Not really. The idea is ancient and not that politically charged. Was Cicero's scepticism the result of 'extreme liberal egalitarianism'? Was Ockham's nominalism?
>Relativism is not being used ideologically or subversively here, it is quite literally just a moral thought in which a large mass of society have been trained to think.
I don't think the mass of society has been "trained" to think consistently one way or the other. People are mostly just exchanging platitudes. If a relativistic view really had penetrated all of modern thinking, why is contemporary discourse - particularly on the liberal left - so intensely moralistic and intolerant of difference?
>I mean the human being phenomenologically, not as a sense-aesthetic outwardly.
Are you saying, then, that there is an objective and consistent phenomenology of beauty? But doesn't this contradict the wild diversity of aesthetic temperaments and value judgements?
>As in, you're denying the reality of human nature to play coy as if one thing is not more beautiful than another
And how do we know which object is the more beautiful, when there are multiple conflicting opinions and no external third party to settle the matter for us (since we are all party to the debate - and all in the same way).
>What action retains any value in and for man if in art its value is merely a character of fashion.
This is like saying that the human form is a "fashion" because it is impermanent and only exists in a contingent period of time. It's assuming that the thing is degraded because it's not timeless. The manner in which people appreciate art is obviously not static - the multiplicity of art forms, standards, etc. from civilisation to civilisation is demonstrative of this. At the same time, there does seem to be a consistent appreciation for art. The fact that this is a tendency that may not be universal among humans - certainly not among mammals - means nothing to me.

[Anonymous No.16511032]

Beauty is the objectification of pleasure.

[Anonymous No.16511035]

>>16510994
No mr. smartmouth anon, I am saying that they are being clearly disingenuous about what is beautiful and most beautiful.

>Not really. The idea is ancient and not that politically charged. Was Cicero's scepticism the result of 'extreme liberal egalitarianism'? Was Ockham's nominalism?
That's not what I said, I said that mass belief in modern society was the result of "extreme liberal egalitarianism". Why do you refuse to properly engage with what I say?

>I don't think the mass of society has been "trained" to think consistently one way or the other.
What a load of rubbish, yet nevertheless you are right in the sense that the silent majority do indeed think and say clearly what they see is blatantly ugly or kitsch, and what is beautiful. I don't think there would have been such a positive reaction to Roger Scruton's Why Beauty Matters among normal people if this wasn't true.

>why is contemporary discourse - particularly on the liberal left - so intensely moralistic and intolerant of difference?
Anon, we're not debating high theology here. We're debating the effect a political correctness has in all truth irrationally had on a mass of people. Never once did I claim the left are somehow universally relativistic or objectivistic(if you want to use that word), that would be stupid and extraordinarily reductive.

Please cease putting words in my mouth, and arguing with strawmen, which I cannot tell are purposeful or not.

>Are you saying, then, that there is an objective and consistent phenomenology of beauty? But doesn't this contradict the wild diversity of aesthetic temperaments and value judgements?
Tisk, anon listen to what I said. I said very explicitly, that to deny a definition sense and presence of beauty in the life of man would be to deny the being *of man*, why do you think I brought up phenomenology? It is quite nihilistic to suppose such a rootless and ugly think as the modern kitsch of today, is beautiful in the slightest. It is incredibly ugly and degenerate.

>there needs to be a third party to decide contradicting views
Quite silly again anon. Human nature does not differ so much as you suppose.

Also I used the word fashion in a very specific context of a completely de-rooted impression, I have no clue what you are raving on about. I didn't call it fashion because it was finite in time, what a ridiculous strawman, I called it fashion as in a de-rooted but chosen thing which is known in the senses.

>>16511032
Faggot, go get dick dick up bum bum.

[Anonymous No.16511036]

>>16511035
>Faggot, go get dick dick up bum bum.
the golem castrati are out in full force today

[Anonymous No.16511038]

>>16510994
No mr. smartmouth anon, I am saying that they are being clearly disingenuous about what is beautiful and most beautiful.

>>16511010
>Not really. The idea is ancient and not that politically charged. Was Cicero's scepticism the result of 'extreme liberal egalitarianism'? Was Ockham's nominalism?
That's not what I said, I said that mass belief in modern society was the result of "extreme liberal egalitarianism". Why do you refuse to properly engage with what I say?

>I don't think the mass of society has been "trained" to think consistently one way or the other.
What a load of rubbish, yet nevertheless you are right in the sense that the silent majority do indeed think and say clearly what they see is blatantly ugly or kitsch, and what is beautiful. I don't think there would have been such a positive reaction to Roger Scruton's Why Beauty Matters among normal people if this wasn't true.

>why is contemporary discourse - particularly on the liberal left - so intensely moralistic and intolerant of difference?
Anon, we're not debating high theology here. We're debating the effect a political correctness has in all truth irrationally had on a mass of people. Never once did I claim the left are somehow universally relativistic or objectivistic(if you want to use that word), that would be stupid and extraordinarily reductive.

Please cease putting words in my mouth, and arguing with strawmen, which I cannot tell are purposeful or not.

>Are you saying, then, that there is an objective and consistent phenomenology of beauty? But doesn't this contradict the wild diversity of aesthetic temperaments and value judgements?
Tisk, anon listen to what I said. I said very explicitly, that to deny a definition sense and presence of beauty in the life of man would be to deny the being *of man*, why do you think I brought up phenomenology? It is quite nihilistic to suppose such a rootless and ugly think as the modern kitsch of today, is beautiful in the slightest. It is incredibly ugly and degenerate.

>there needs to be a third party to decide contradicting views
Quite silly again anon. Human nature does not differ so much as you suppose.

Also I used the word fashion in a very specific context of a completely de-rooted impression, I have no clue what you are raving on about. I didn't call it fashion because it was finite in time, what a ridiculous strawman, I called it fashion as in a de-rooted but chosen thing which is known in the senses.

>>16511032
Faggot, go get dick dick up bum bum.

[Anonymous No.16511042]

>>16511036
Carlyle already refuted your pig philosophy, utilitarian.

[Anonymous No.16511050]

>>16511042
>Santayana retroactively refuted by the dyspeptic Carlyle
Good luck.

[Anonymous No.16511061]

>>16511035
>I said that mass belief in modern society was the result of "extreme liberal egalitarianism". Why do you refuse to properly engage with what I say?
Yes, and I am disputing this. The phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" - in one form or another - is millennias old. The observation that people have different tastes - sometimes wildly different - is prehistorical. The idea that it is an intrinsically or especially modern idea is a farcical anachronism. It is like Biblical literalism and other forms of revisionist 'originalism' in the sense that it is itself deeply modern while pretending to be traditional.
>What a load of rubbish, yet nevertheless you are right in the sense that the silent majority do indeed think and say clearly what they see is blatantly ugly or kitsch, and what is beautiful. I don't think there would have been such a positive reaction to Roger Scruton's Why Beauty Matters among normal people if this wasn't true.
Working class people think tattoos look good. Middle class people think kitsch house paintings look good. Upper class people think postmodern monstrosities look good. I do not think there is an aesthetic norm distinct from specific circumstances. Art in the Christian middle ages didn't put much emphasis on idealised human beauty in its paintings. They were mostly symbolic and often looked ugly. Why is that "worse" than pagan-inspired Renaissance art?
>It is quite nihilistic to suppose such a rootless and ugly think as the modern kitsch of today, is beautiful in the slightest. It is incredibly ugly and degenerate.
OK. Proof?
>Quite silly again anon. Human nature does not differ so much as you suppose.
OK. When are you exposing your infant or having pederastic sex?

[Anonymous No.16511075]

It seems significant, however, that while the cause of the experience of beauty differs broadly, the experience of beauty itself is always very similar.

[Anonymous No.16511096]

>>16511050
>some random pragmatist can compare to the great and original Carlyle
Yeah right.

>Yes, and I am disputing this
Well evidently not, because the philosophical presence of relativism in some other part or time of the world says nothing about the cause of the very particular relativistic opinion about beauty in modern liberal society, which is almost universally paired in spoken dialogue with that politically correct moral ought of egalitarianism. It's not just an unspoken cause, it is almost always spoken.

>The phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" - in one form or another - is millennias old. The observation that people have different tastes - sometimes wildly different - is prehistorical.
This isn't what I'm debating you fucking simpleton can you learn to read mate? Fooking hell none of this even has anything to do with the cause of relativism in modern society, you're just restating your opinion that "relativism is right", you can believe that but that's not relevant to this particular questioning.

>Working class people think tattoos look good.
No they don't, a large amount of people think tattoos like dirty or some such. Nevertheless my argument was no resting on that, you're so daft.

And you don't even understand what I'm saying yet, you've repeatedly laid out strawman while I continue to go along with your questions and answer them properly but you all this has done is lead away from what we were actually arguing about. You're a pure brainlet, that is the only explanation for your innability to grasp the simple idea that beauty being entirely subjective, means that any sort of morality is also subjective. You're not only a moron you're a materialist philistine, you act like a pig in mud when the phrase "high beauty" is mentioned, you seem to think there is no ranking for something which is beautiful and not in the life of man. Least of all you're unable to see that the content of the Sistine Madonna could never be replaced by a brick wall, oh but of course it's all subjective to you, except of course human limits to be able to see such a supreme beauty in a bare nothingness.

>Art in the Christian middle ages didn't put much emphasis on idealised human beauty in its paintings. They were mostly symbolic and often looked ugly.
Ugliness was a theme, but you'd have to be a fool to think the works themselves were ugly. Ugliness is portrayed in a higher beauty.

>umm can I have proof for that statement
Literally pick related, you're a disgusting person with no intuition or spirituality in your life. You're stuck in a narcissistic postmodern game and this only adds to the idea that "at least you know more than those who are often socially said to be great", people like Plato, and really people like Heidegger as well, though someone with as shallow thought as you will take Heidegger to be a relativist in beauty.

>OK. When are you exposing your infant or having pederastic sex?
How is that related?

[Anonymous No.16511102]

>>16511061
>OK. Proof?

[Anonymous No.16511107]

>>16511096
what do you think of this? >>16511075

[Anonymous No.16511115]

>>16511107
I would say he is correct, whether he is speaking about the content of beauty or the place/effect of beauty in life. But it is necessarily both to some extent.

[Anonymous No.16511126]

>>16511102
please put reddit antennae on this pic next time you post it. thanks anon

t. Ministry of Propaganda

[Anonymous No.16511129]

>>16511126
Go away cringe utilitarian materialist.

[Anonymous No.16511134]

>>16511115
Okay. So, what more does beauty need to be in order to be "objective"? It seems like it already is an objective phenomena in the sense that it can be reliably caused and observed.

[Anonymous No.16511136]

>>16510558
>>16510558
Yes, it is. Please, explain me how only one outlook on art and aesthetics can be true? Who has autority to said "this is objectively perfect art, and that is objectively bad art"? How you define "bad" or "good"? Why i must love for example only cheap and clean neo-classicist copies of ancient greek sculpture? Because you said they are only good art?

[Anonymous No.16511138]

>>16510868
This seems to be getting at something important. Can you expand?

[Anonymous No.16511144]

>>16511134
I am saying beauty is objective.

[Anonymous No.16511147]

>>16511136
Just think, perhaps anon, that tradition is right in holding some art and things as the highest forms of beauty. And that if you call art and beauty subjective, and refuse to make oughts in the realm of beauty and art, then you do also make morality subjective.

[Anonymous No.16511154]

What does Carlyle say about beauty?

[Anonymous No.16511159]

>>16511147
How does morality related to art?

[Anonymous No.16511165]

>>16511159
To give one example how, if you deny a hierarchy of the value of actions, idealised actions, one painting perfectly capturing such a thing-- then you also deny morality.

[Anonymous No.16511174]

>>16511154
What you would expect, with the fact of beauty recognised in the life of man. But above all, he denies utilitarianism and any sort of conception of beauty as "high pleasure", he calls utilitarianism pig philosophy, see this thread I made a short time ago:

>>/lit/thread/S16473604

[Anonymous No.16511182]

>>16511096
>which is almost universally paired in spoken dialogue with that politically correct moral ought of egalitarianism.
No it's not.
>you're just restating your opinion that "relativism is right"
The statement you're quoting does not say that. I am just disputing your causal inference that liberal egalitarianism is uniquely and specifically responsible for a widespread belief in the subjectivity of art. I'm not doubting that it is an influence, I just don't think it's the primary cause. It is a long and ancient tradition - a notion so commonplace that to attribute its provenance to a modern political philosophy needs to be demonstrated, not simply assumed.
>your innability to grasp the simple idea that beauty being entirely subjective, means that any sort of morality is also subjective.
Can you please point out to me where I've even engaged with this idea? I've been debating you on other points, but not this one. I don't think morality is objective either.
>You're not only a moron you're a materialist philistine
Nothing to do with materialism.
>you seem to think there is no ranking for something which is beautiful and not in the life of man
I have my own ranking, and I like to shit on other people's taste, but there is LITERALLY no agreeable standard by which I can demonstrate that my taste is better than any other person's.
>Least of all you're unable to see that the content of the Sistine Madonna could never be replaced by a brick wall, oh but of course it's all subjective to you
A pig wouldn't care. Christ himself says don't throw pearls before swine. Isn't that a demonstration - that is unique to human beings? Or do humans have special beauty receptors that are more perfect than those ? Since lknowledge beauty is received via sense impressions, then why not argue that human taste is superior to animal taste? Why do beetles prefer to eat shit while we prefer to eat foie gras? Are they just into the kitsch of the culinary world?
>Literally pick related, you're a disgusting person with no intuition or spirituality in your life. You're stuck in a narcissistic postmodern game and this only adds to the idea that "at least you know more than those who are often socially said to be great", people like Plato, and really people like Heidegger as well, though someone with as shallow thought as you will take Heidegger to be a relativist in beauty.
Upset?
>How is that related?
I thought you were the one arguing for the connection between moral and artistic objectivity. If human nature is so universal, why could a virtuous Greek kill children and fuck boys, while a virtuous Christian could not?

[Anonymous No.16511192]

>>16511147
>that tradition is right in holding some art and things as the highest forms of beauty
Which tradition? The Pre-Raphaelites? The Academicists? The cave painters?

[Anonymous No.16511193]

>>16511174
Thanks. I'll give it a read.

[Anonymous No.16511200]

>>16511165
This picture perfectly capture idealised action. Concept-art is also pure capturing of idea. But they are "ugly and degenerate" from your perspective, yes? But how this all related to morality?

[Anonymous No.16511204]

Objectively perfect art
https://youtu.be/SYnVYJDxu2Q

[Anonymous No.16511209]

>>16511204
yes

[Anonymous No.16511230]

>>16511204
>Objectively perfect art
https://youtu.be/r-kAnNgqN9o

[Anonymous No.16511264]

>>16511182
>do human beings have special beauty receptors better than pigs?
Essentially, yes. This is why Carlyle calls utilitarianism pig philosophy, "what gives me pleasure is good".

I've answered all previous questions before.

>Upset?
Did you pick up the British accent though?

>I thought you were the one arguing for the connection between moral and artistic objectivity.
I am, though it's no simple matter.

>If human nature is so universal, why could a virtuous Greek kill children and fuck boys, while a virtuous Christian could not?
That is not an aesthetic statement, this is entirely a denial of morality. I stand correct, that the spiritual relation between art/beauty and morality cannot be denied.

[Anonymous No.16511271]

>>16511230
>>Objectively perfect art
https://youtu.be/w6Q3mHyzn78
https://youtu.be/VdQY7BusJNU

[Anonymous No.16511275]

>>16511200
I never said it was ugly, but you wish to deny a theoretical basis for any art.

[Anonymous No.16511281]

>>16511264
Please tell me you're a theist. It's the only way your worldview can be salvaged.

[Anonymous No.16511293]

>>16511275
>theoretical basis for any art
Is pure emotion, one which creator wants to translate to the observer - at least i think so. Art can`t have something with "objectivity", it`s not logic. It`s inherently chaotic and (at least in theory) evoking.

[Anonymous No.16511296]

>>16511147
morality is subjective though, morals have changed loads over different ages

[Anonymous No.16511426]

>>16511281
>>16511296
Both of you are crass materialists that are so indoctrinated in a modern degeneracy and weakness you're incapable of conceiving of a traditional framework or worldview, I see no possibility where you would like someone like Heidegger if you understood him.

>>16511293
Irrespective, we can for example say that there is a very obvious spirit of the times in the 30's Italian art, with the vibrant colours, simple shapes and a communication of a direct emotion and often speed. That's incredibly reductive but theorising is not the problem, the problem is when theory does not fit reality(evidently). But you wish to have no theory and merely have a subjective "feeling" art.

Nevertheless this video explains such a theory of art, and colours in art as well, the whole thing is fantastic even though I don't agree with the philosophy it will give you a perfect idea of such a fitting theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FPdrLlshRA

[Anonymous No.16511570]

>>16510558
Claiming that anything is “just subjective” is a great way to ensure you never have any opinions of your own, and instead maintain the taste profile of the hyperrealized consumer, someone whose tastes are determined solely by the colliding locus of the marketing of various companies

[Anonymous No.16511678]

>>16511426
>Both of you are crass materialists that are so indoctrinated in a modern degeneracy and weakness you're incapable of conceiving of a traditional framework or worldview, I see no possibility where you would like someone like Heidegger if you understood him.
Indignation is not a replacement for argument. Assuming that someone who disagrees with you is simply 'indoctrinated' is childish. I used to be a Catholic.