/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17074046]

Is there a book about understanding paintings? I want to know why certain paintings are appreciated or regarded as masterpiece.
I just found out pic related is one of the greatest works of art, and I don't know why.
I want to change this. Is there a book that could help me?

[Anonymous No.17074062]

>>17074046
Same, I look at that and I think it looks quite ugly and shitty. I'm not smart though so maybe that's why I can't appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.17074080]

>>17074046
Just look at historical textbooks about the techniques of the famous artists and of their movements, along with their manifestos. I doubt their is one book that covers all famous art.

[Anonymous No.17074083]

>>17074046
Unironically the only thing I can think of is art after metaphysics by ebert. Also don't listen to what anyone else says, I like art but people like picasso, manet, goya, or the pic you posted I do not like at all. I seriously feel nothing looking at these paintings.
The easiest thing to get into in my opinion is academicism. Look into bouguereau and louis gerome. I also really enjoy manet. Bottom line is you should not care what art historians or critics say, they are all ungodly heathens anyway. Also reading books can't make you like art more, only understand it better. Your like/dislike of a piece is mostly instantaneous.

[Anonymous No.17074087]

>>17074083
I forgot to mention you should also look into caravaggio if you have not already.

[Anonymous No.17074092]

>>17074083
Also I am retarded. The one I do not like is monet, the one I really like is manet. Brainletism on my part.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17074098]

Sister Wendy’s

[Anonymous No.17074110]

>>17074083
>I also really enjoy manet. Bottom line is you should not care what art historians or critics say, they are all ungodly heathens anyway. Also reading books can't make you like art more, only understand it better. Your like/dislike of a piece is mostly instantaneous.
This is like saying there is no objectively good literature and all literature are subjective.
We know by now that some literature or atleast authors are objectively at a higher level than the rest. So why will it be any different for art?

[Anonymous No.17074127]

>>17074110
>This is like saying there is no objectively good literature and all literature are subjective.
Not even close. It means that there was a dramatic shift in what critics found objectively good about art sometime during the modern period. It means there was a dramatic cultural shift as well, as critics do not operate in a vacuum. Look at the critics today for an extreme example. Many of them like pollock, rothko, dadaism, etc. etc. Do you think they care at all about objective beauty? Rewind a little bit and you get less extreme versions; difference in degree but not in kind.
All it means is that beauty has been subverted.

[Anonymous No.17075080]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Treatise_on_Painting
>A Treatise on Painting (Trattato della pittura) is a collection of Leonardo da Vinci's writings entered in his notebooks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Alphonse_du_Fresnoy
>His Latin poem, De arte graphica, was written during his Italian sojourn, and embodied his observations on the art of painting; it may be termed a critical treatise on the practice of the art, with general advice to students.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_de_Piles
>To his last published work: Cours de peinture par principes avec un balance de peintres (1708) de Piles appended a list of fifty-six major painters with whose work he had acquainted himself as a connoisseur during his travels.
>To each painter in the list he gave marks from 0 to 18 for composition, drawing, color and expression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Richardson
>The works of Jonathan Richardson, containing I. The theory of painting. II. Essay on the art of criticism. III. The science of a connoisseur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harris_(grammarian)
>Three Treatises — on art; on music, painting and poetry; and on happiness

https://archive.org/details/diderotsthought00didegoog/
>Diderot's Thoughts on Art & Style

https://archive.org/details/worksofanthonyra13meng/
>The works of Anthony Raphael Mengs... he wrote about art in Spanish, Italian, and German. He reveals an eclectic theory of art that sees perfection as attainable through a well-balanced fusion of diverse excellences: Greek design combined with the expression of Raphael, the chiaroscuro of Correggio, and the colour of Titian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Reynolds
> His "Discourses", a series of lectures delivered at the Academy between 1769 and 1790, are remembered for their sensitivity and perception. In one lecture he expressed the opinion that "invention, strictly speaking, is little more than a new combination of those images which have been previously gathered and deposited in the memory." William Jackson in his contemporary essays said of Reynolds ' there is much ingenuity and originality in all his academic discourses, replete with classical knowledge of his art, acute remarks on the works of others, and general taste and discernment

[Anonymous No.17075096]

>>17075080
forgot hogarth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analysis_of_Beauty

[Anonymous No.17075124]

>>17074046
Check out Daniel Arasse, he's very good!
It's funny that you posted this picture, because I used to think like you that it had nothing special and it was overpraised despite my love for Velasquez. But one day I went the Prado in Madrid, and fuck, this is a masterpiece. I cannot tell you why but when I saw it I had a real shock. And in one of the most beautiful museum of the world it means something. In our civilisation we are used to witness everything with screens, distorted, in bad quality but paintings, much like the rest of the world are to be experienced in person. They have a presence which makes you react a way a few pixels cannot. For a very basic exemple: this painting is actually huge which you might not guess like that.
Same happened to me with Der Kuss by Klimt in Wien.

[Anonymous No.17075135]

>>17074110
>We know by now that some literature or atleast authors are objectively at a higher level than the rest.
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.17075141]

e.h. gombrich

[Anonymous No.17075182]

>>17074046
Ortega y Gasset wrote a pretty insightful essay into Velazquez; you can star from there.

[Anonymous No.17075200]

>>17074046
Get books with high quality reproductions of paintings and page through them. Then go to museum's. Most museaums have free days, and they are usually lovely places. Just enjoy the work: understanding comes with culture and culture comes with experience.

Better that then some brainlet professor telling you that the artist's brush is his dick and that his creation is fundamentally masterubratory or some other such nonsense.

[Anonymous No.17075201]

>>17074046
Ignore everyone in here.
Ernst Gombrich's The Story of Art is still the best intro out there.

[Anonymous No.17075208]

>>17074046
I want to know what's wrong with the one in the black dress

[Anonymous No.17075259]

>>17075208
She’s a court dwarf, Velazquez is painting a portrait of the court of Philip IV of Spain. But look in the mirror all the way in the back. It’s Philip IV and his Wife. We’re seeing the court from the perspective of the King while he’s having his portrait done by Velazquez, on the left.

[Anonymous No.17075294]

>>17074046
Try to remember that this isn’t a photograph, it’s a painting. Everything is carefully composed, and nothing is anywhere accidentally. As in all paintings, if you want to appreciate them, the context is less important than your response. Look at them, and think about the subtleties of light and form that make a composition. Look at how parts make a whole greater than the sum of parts. And never stop looking at paintings, you want to gain a vast mental catalogue of images with which to compare anything you see.

[Anonymous No.17075305]

The Order of Things

[Anonymous No.17075309]

>>17075259
Thanks

[Anonymous No.17075321]

>>17074046
Have you ever considered forming your own opinions instead of having all your thoughts spoonfed to you by others? It's rewarding, I suggest everyone reading this try it some time.

[Anonymous No.17075335]

>>17075141
>>17075201
>>/lit/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=gombrich
such a sad meme

[Anonymous No.17075343]

>>17074046
Unfortunately paintings are better appreciated when seen in person.

[Anonymous No.17075345]

>>17075321
It's not always easy to form opinions about works of art from the seventeenth century when you don't even know what you're looking at.

[Anonymous No.17075346]

>>17074046
You're probably just retarded, go look at some art in real life not just on a screen.

[Anonymous No.17075351]

>>17075201
This

[Anonymous No.17075804]

>>17075201
>1000 pages
Yikes
>>17075080
Good list
>>17075124
That makes me wanna visit Madrid

[Anonymous No.17075974]

>>17075804
Large part of those 1000 pages are pictures of painting, so you know what he's describing.

[Anonymous No.17076027]

>>17075804
Definitely a great city, lived there for an internship lots of great museum. That said most major historical European cities have greats museums, and of course you have Italy which puts the rest of the world to shame just with their churches.

[Anonymous No.17076054]

Start with the basics

[Anonymous No.17076110]

I heard about this book a lot, but never read it. Maybe anyone that did could pass a judgement?

[Anonymous No.17076276]

>>17074046
>I just found out pic related is one of the greatest works of art, and I don't know why.
>I want to change this. Is there a book that could help me?

Sr. Wendy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMvBZSeeS1k

This is very good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0A2uCgLx7E

Sr. Wendy has penetrating insights, and offers a very good introduction to the study and understanding of art: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBv0HezlOBw

Sr. Wendy on Piss Christ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9pAKdkJh-Y

[Anonymous No.17076888]

>>17074046
I know of Taschen but I never read any books from them. They are pricey so just pirate them

[Anonymous No.17077051]

>>17075259
I studied this before and forgot most of what I learnt but if I remember right, what makes it interesting as well apart from the whole Philip IV's perspective is that it's a technically a self-portrait and a ballsy one at that because it's supposed to a royal family portrait and Velasquez included himself in it.
There are bunch of other neat details on it, the Wikipedia article on this is worth reading.

[Anonymous No.17077145]

>>17074046
Stephen Davies "the philosophy of art"
Noel's Carroll's "philosophy of art: a contemporary introduction"

Great intro to the subject. Will introduce you to a number of perspectives and provide sources on where to go from there. If you want to jump right into theory with no intro:

- Merleau-Ponty's Aesthetic papers ("Cezanne's Doubt", "Indirect Language and the Voices of Silence", "Eye and Mind")
- Benjamin's writings on media
- Danto's "The Artworld"
- Walton's "Categories of Art"
- Adorno and Horkheimer "The Culture Industry"
- Kant "Critique of Judgement"

I would highly recommend you read the Davies before any of the other stuff.

[Anonymous No.17077183]

I really enjoyed Ways of Seeing

[Anonymous No.17077339]

>>17074083
>if you want to learn about art history don't read art history
great advice, anon

[Anonymous No.17077353]

>>17074046
well, for starters a sense of scale might help

[Anonymous No.17077370]

>>17074127
lol name some of these critics who you're clearly reading so much of, i dare you

[Anonymous No.17077693]

>>17077145
Thanks mate

>>17077183
I second this

[Anonymous No.17077742]

>>17077353
how did he draw a picture that big being an average sized human?

[Anonymous No.17077755]

>>17074110
What you call "objectively at a higher level" is merely, MERELY, the distilled consensus of critical opinions.

[Anonymous No.17077762]

>>17074046
all art has the same function, but not every individual piece of art will have the same effect, or any effect at all, on every individual.
>Art is conceived as a way of breaking down automatism in perception, and the aim of the image is held to be, not making a meaning more accessible for our comprehension, but bringing about a special perception of a thing, bringing about the "seeing," and not just the "recognizing," of it.

[Anonymous No.17077766]

>>17077755
How valid is someone's opinion if he ranks Stephanie Meyer higher than Tolstoy?

[Anonymous No.17077826]

>>17075335
>>17075201
is this all one guy? Also, is gombrich a pure aesthetician or is he concerned with political statements as well? is it possible to divide the two? I just want to know whether I'm about to step into a more refined version of those embarassing PragerU hit-pieces on modern art

[Anonymous No.17077879]

>>17077766
Validity is not a boolean. I would disagree with that person, I would probably discount him altogether as a pseud. But this is a red herring. How valid is someone's opinion if he ranks Pope higher than Marvell? It depends how much I enjoy Marvell. We can play the "what if" game perpetually, but in the end criticism is a matter of current opinions. Lowell used to be the most critically adored poet in America. Now he's practically forgotten except as a sidenote to Bishop.

[Anonymous No.17077907]

>>17077879
>this is a red herring
It isn't. It precisely drives the point that even though lit is subjective, there is a fixed higher ground of some authors over others.

[Anonymous No.17077922]

>>17077777

[Anonymous No.17077955]

>>17077742
it's lifesized, this is what industrial food has taken from you

[Anonymous No.17077983]

>>17077742
The old masters used to attach drinking straws to the ends of their pant brushes to extend their length, attaching another drinking straw when the first one would no longer suffice. By my guess, having also used this method, Velasquez would probably have had to use somewhere between 10 and 14 drinking straws to reach the top of the painting.
This was incredibly taxing, not to mention how difficult it was to load the brush each time and even see what he was painting. That's why this painting loses its definition as its height increases.

[Anonymous No.17077999]

>>17077983
Plastic got invented in 20th century, get a better joke

[Anonymous No.17078007]

heinrich wolfflin, alois riegl

[Anonymous No.17078009]

>>17077907
Absolutely not true. Fixed according to who? According to university students? Hardly a representative sample. Ask the average teenage girl and she'll answer Stephanie Meyer. Where is your cutoff point? Where is this so-called higher ground? You cannot define it except in vague terms of "X is better than Y," which, again, will vary depending on who you ask. I personally think Anna Karenina is better than Twilight, but I don't see the use in declaring its superiority. It's a totally reductive and masturbatory exercise that reveals nothing new about how to read books. The people most interested in producing heirarchies of artistic quality are usually faux-besieged laymen and lazy "cultural critics."

[Anonymous No.17078016]

>>17077999
They used paper straws back then

[Anonymous No.17078039]

>>17077999
He's never heard of paper
Also
>joke

[Anonymous No.17078060]

>>17077742
they used scaffoldings or big brushes
>>17077983
kek

[Anonymous No.17078104]

>>17078060
are you trying to tell me you use SCAFFOLDING instead of drinking straws? talk about occams razor, its much simpler just to tape drinking straws to your brush

[Anonymous No.17078643]

>>17077339
What?

[Anonymous No.17079265]

>>17078007
This is the only post in this thread with the right answers.

t. art historian

[Anonymous No.17079591]

>>17079265
Explain what is good about them and which book(s) to start with. You can't just drop your qualification and not back it up with some kind of critical analysis

[Anonymous No.17079608]

>>17074046
>I want to know why certain paintings are appreciated or regarded as masterpiece.
I've been an artist so long that I kind of forget how anything looks to people who havent, but the gist of it is:
technical execution (anatomy, lighting, perspective, materials) + spatial concepts (composition, shape language) + theme (ideas, emotion, references)
you should try some painting yourself, it will naturally increase your appreciation of the masters because you will learn what is hard and what's trivial

[Anonymous No.17079684]

>>17079591
These are the two art historians whose foundational works influenced, either directly or indirectly, all academic perceptions of art after them. Wolfflin presents a brilliant approach to understanding style and periodization, as does Riegl. While the works present dated methods compared to current scholarship in the field, they're some of the best texts for giving you the tools to actually approach art in a legitimate manner. If you really just want to learn to enjoy art, then you can learn to do that by going to look at paintings. If you want to understand art, as it seems OP does, then you need to have the methodological tools to do so. In terms of actually learning to appreciate the value of art, understanding the early approaches is pretty essential. That being said, they are academic works. When I started, the first book I read was Painting and Experience in 15th Century Italy by Michael Baxandall. Even Ways of Seeing, which was mentioned in this thread, is a great place to start, but it also has a very particular lens it looks through which may alienate some readers.

[Anonymous No.17079690]

>>17079684
I would also suggest Michael Fried if you are interested in more radical interpretations of classical art written in a very poetic manner.

[Anonymous No.17079692]

>>17079684
>art historians
This is a totally irrelevant category of profession. No other artist has ever raised the subject of an art historian to me. They dont exist culturally

[Anonymous No.17079739]

>>17075804
more like niggrid by now lmao

[Anonymous No.17079750]

>>17079692
It's literally just a historian who focuses on art. It's not that difficult to grasp. And of course, artists don't think about art historians. Why would they? Art historians focus on the role of art in the past, artists are basically just making art in the present.

[Anonymous No.17079843]

>>17079692
Your opinion is narrow and wrong. Culture is diffusive. To my mind, the best poem of the last 50 years is Self Portrait in a Convex Mirror. In it, Ashbery draws heavily from art historian Giorgio Vasari. Everyone who has read Ashbery has now been exposed to Vasari's critical eye.

[Anonymous No.17079867]

>>17074046
But anon, Art History is an entire discipline.

[Anonymous No.17080145]

I wrote something too long so you'll have to cope with this. Start with this old comment to get an idea of objective vs subjective interpretation:
>>/lit/thread/S14611949#p14612908

In short, as Goethe said, beauty is perfection combining with freedom. This is the form of art, its dominion the extent of its reach, and its essence harmonization with law and time. Skill is only a minor part of the work, determined by necessity of these other factors. However, what you'll find in most interpretations today is criticism of art based on the technical qualities alone, as if all its meaning could be traced through the individual components - a pantheism of symbols.

At the highest there is divine and elemental law, lesser factors are the natural, historical, national, and individual. A great work of art, as Holderlin made clear, was formed of the divine, the highest objective, but may be experienced subjectively without the inner laws being diminished. The festival or rite is the greatest experience of art, where harmony with law is a community event, a communion with time. Often this perfection of art occurs as an occasion of the seasons, with contests, drinking parties, and minor works scattered throughout the festival atmosphere. The individual works are not so important in themselves, however, together they form a transitional world of creation - and in their difference they unfold as the beauty of the entire event. This is the total work of art in the ancient sense, rather than Wagner's understanding.

One should also remember that which is greater than art, or even the festival: the oracle who is chosen by the Muses to deliver the community to a new dominion either through truth or lie; those who are raised up from the earth by the gods; killed by a god to become a constellation of law; all of the great metamorphoses; the condition of wealth in war, as we see in the contests over armour in the Iliad, or the funeral games. The spontaneous and elemental are often of a higher order of being than any artistic sense, beyond its creation. And as Holderlin rightly pointed out, our shadow beneath the tyranny of Greek memory can only lead to an artistic impoverishment.

[Anonymous No.17080147]

>>17079684
what do you think of >>17074083

[Anonymous No.17080165]

>>17080145
The triumph of the painting points to something quite different, a reserved world, but also one in which historical time has become determinate. One looks back even as he steps forward, as there is little future light; surrounded by memories, but also images of becoming which is not entirely known in its end. The painting achieves technical perfection, but deprived from the festival or formative order its power and law can only diminish.

However, rather than its technical qualities alone, the world of illusion, Las Meninas should be seen in what it perfects, what it frees, and what it harmonizes with. It is in this that one may sense its reflection as a means, an occasion in becoming. It would be too simple to see the decline of the monarchy alone, and this was certainly not the intention in creating the image. Velasquez was close to the king and the family, and what we see is, apart from the overwhelming failures of the monarchy, its retreat into the simple life. Or to avoid critical readings, and maintain a focus of becoming, we might say that the family is at peace with the wealth of the new forming order. The monarchy does not fall, rather it extends its dominion and must elevate all those close to it, deepen their class unity and even bring them in as a family.

The very figures of the painting would not have been possible if Velasquez had not been one with the family. What we see is a new order of the court, completely at ease with a new set of laws which would bring judgement through wealth and the exchange of artistic creation. A new grounding appears in which domestic life and the simple must meet with every being, but also in which technical measures, the legislation of daily activities is a constant reordering. Aside from being at peace with the family, the wealth of a democratising nobility, there is also the hidden image of time - of the portrait for which there is no time. Where for some kings the portrait became the whole of his dwindling nobility, others cast themselves within the new formative order, the metamorphoses of nature as it began to enter the castles, courtyards, and family rooms.

[Anonymous No.17080228]

>>17080165
>The triumph of the painting, as a creative type within artistic form,

[Anonymous No.17080320]

>>17080165
>One looks back even as he steps forward, as there is little future light;
>there is also the hidden image of time - of the portrait for which there is no time.
Bruegel's Misanthrope and Magpie upon the Gallows would be useful comparative images here. Rather than the technical reading which overly modernises the painting, as if it were an Escher work, one may see instead an invisible framing through the impossible object. Through the simplicity of the court, its whole coming dominion, the retreat of the monarchy, but also its greater genealogy.

[Anonymous No.17080343]

>>17074046
Go see art in person. It is completely different from looking at it on your computer/phone. I know it's difficult right now because of Corona, but if you get the chance, go. Looking at pic related on my computer really doesn't do much for me, even though it's my favorite painting. But when I saw it in person, it was completely different.

[Anonymous No.17080348]

>>17074110
>We know by now that some literature or atleast authors are objectively at a higher level than the rest.
sure we do

[Anonymous No.17080527]

>>17080147
Entirely LARPing. People who think art historians are superfluous don't understand that the entire way they think about art is unconsciously informed by 19th-20th-century art history.

[Anonymous No.17080574]

>>17080527
What about Gombrich, should I read that book or is it a meme?

[Anonymous No.17080613]

Read Gombrich's History of Art.

[Anonymous No.17080686]

>>17074046
I think that painting is more about the context, if you dont know the importance of the red cross or you have literally no idea who anyone is in that painting or there relationships with anyone else I cant imagine you'll get much out of it.

[Anonymous No.17080715]

>>17080686
I agree. The culture materialist have a point in stating that one has to know the historical context of a work of art in order to understand it. What irks me is the stoner bro school of Barthes that has gained much traction.
>bro...the author/painter is dead...the reader/spectator makes the meaning...

[Anonymous No.17080732]

>>17080574
Gombrich's book is good for just getting a quick overview but it is not going to teach you anything new, just introduce you to a lot of works. He was a pretty good scholar however, an associate of the Warburg Institute. My favourite of his is Art and Illusion which is an essay collection pulled from his A.W. Mellon Lectures.

Frankly, I don't think there's is one perfect catch-all introduction to the history of art. I think it's better to find good but academically rigorous texts on specific areas. And each era of art history has its gems.

[Anonymous No.17080742]

>>17080686
This is quite true. I mentioned in my previous post the Warburg Institute. Aby Warburg was a big proponent of the use of textual sources as a means of understanding the psychology of the artist. I think art history has to be built first off of cultural history, specific analyses of the nature of the mind of the individual during certain periods of time. Only a cultural-historical understanding can give rise to an accurate analysis of a work of art.

[Anonymous No.17080752]

>>17080732
Thanks for your informed posts, artbro.

[Anonymous No.17080881]

>>17079608
what do you draw?

[Anonymous No.17080885]

>>17080145
>>17080165
Great posts

[Anonymous No.17081265]

>>17075259
The girl is holding a small red vase made of an edible clay that contains a psychoactive drug. This was a fad at the time. everything is composed in the picture with purpose. The empty space above the vase and the way the maid and littler little girl are positioned intentionally to leave that black void with the ethereal portrait of the parents just kind of floating around. All of the adults are far back and look on with concern at the scene.

Art history books and classes are good for learning how symbolism was used in different periods and they ferret out all the little details that give context.

When you break a painting like this down there are at least 6 little story lines going on. Its a synthesis of technical proficiency and subtle storytelling.

I read an article about this painting that broke all this down

[Anonymous No.17081297]

>>17075259
Thats really interesting. I took the picture as a portrait implying that the parents are absent and only there in spirit. If it's a mirror, then the point of the painting is that the King is totally oblivious to the fact that the daughter is poisoning herself in full view of everyone. Its like the painting is saying to them directly to focus on what is in front of them. Its an even cooler painting if what you say is right

[Anonymous No.17081316]

>>17079692
You fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.17081351]

The little jar is a Búcaro de Indias, which is supposed to contain essential oils or medicine to impart flavor to the water you drink from it. Girls would eat them to lighten their skin. I think the idea was that the clay was mixed with some herb that could make you slightly high but over ingestion gave you anemia.

Its all speculation, but its a compelling idea that fits the mood of the scene

[Anonymous No.17081681]

>>17074062
>I'm not smart though
lol

[Anonymous No.17082060]

>>17074083
based ebert poster

[Anonymous No.17082457]

>>17074046
This is one of my favorite pieces of art. Not because it "looks good" or some other crap, this is not what makes art.
It depicts the process of its own creation in contrast to the process of viewing it (look at the ladies in the back). I don't want to write too much about its interpretation right now but you can look it up, it is very interesting and will give you an overview of what art is.
It doesn't matter though what the publicly accepted interpretation for a piece of art is, if you have another idea and it makes sense that is perfectly valid as well but you proobably know that if you browse a literature board

[Anonymous No.17082525]

>>17074127
Nigger many art critics that like post war art like older art as well you ever saw Arthur Danto or Lucie Edward Smith badmouth Rembrandt fuck outta here.

[Anonymous No.17082615]

what did the artist meant by this painting?

[Anonymous No.17083151]

>>17080145
Great post

[Anonymous No.17083877]

>>17080145
>Goethe said, beauty is perfection combining with freedom.
Where does he say this?

[Anonymous No.17084107]

>>17082615
the divinely appointed and legitimate supremacy of the roman catholic church

[Anonymous No.17084718]

>>17082615
Story?

[Anonymous No.17084759]

>>17074046
Le Fruit d'Or par Nathalie Sarraute.

[Anonymous No.17085208]

>>17078009
The TIME. The time and the LASTING VALUE is our higher ground. These pop books you cited are maybe just too recent for us to avaliate properly but I seriously doubt they will still be read even a century ahead. The mass, as usual, is ignoble. There's nothing to chew in these works or too little comparably to most of the canon.
Don't try and play dumb, unless you're a moral relativist Beauty and thus Art is in a certain degree OBJECTIVE.

[Anonymous No.17085325]

>>17085208
>Time will be on our side!
An unfalsifiable, unprovable statement. Mawkish, trite, and utterly boring. Stop throwing around the word "objective." You're clearly capable of neither philosophical nor historical scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.17085609]

>>17085325
Answer me:
Do you believe there's good and evil OBJECTIVELY?

Don't run away now, you fag.

[Anonymous No.17086007]

>>17085609
No I don't. I'm not a christcuck. I believe there is action and consequence. The consequence can only be enforced by the tribe (or by one's own sense of morality, which is subjective). The tribe decides the consequence, and therefore decides what is morally objectionable. Even something as universally derided today as murdering an infant--this is not objectively evil. There existed tribes that have permitted murdering infants (for example, as a child sacrifice, or murdering one of a pair of newborn twins in Mesoamerican cultures, to ward off evil spirits. C.f. Eduard Seler).

[Anonymous No.17086100]

>>17086007
>No I don't.
Okey, opinion discarded. I haven't even read the rest of your post. Now I know with what kind of person I'm arguing here.
It's just waste of time.

[Anonymous No.17086196]

>>17074127
Artists of all kinds should be interested in understanding their form and expanding its capabilities. Why are you against reading art criticism? This is no different to dismissing Ulysses as pointless subversion or twentieth century art music as masturbatory or degenerate. Aren't you interested in why these critics value those artists, or what those artists were trying to achieve? The idea that painting should be limited to academicism is just depressing and dumb. Also the fact that you see some solid "modernist" line between Manet and artists like Monet and Velazquez leads me to believe that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.17086937]

>>17086100
as i suspected, (you) have no argument, you're just here to shitpost and feel good about yourself. here, take a rare wojak for your troubles

[Anonymous No.17086953]

>>17085609
Wait, you believe there's objectively good and evil? Do you just exist reading books published within the last 5 years in your local area?

[Anonymous No.17087694]

>>17086007
>>17086953
>Even something as universally derided today as murdering an infant--this is not objectively evil.
Not only TODAY. Across countries and across cultures, across TIME and across SPACE. Most communities or almost ALL of them have some kind of taboo against killing or raping their enfants AS A GENERAL RULE.
Now, don't come here and cherry pick me talking about how a doctor might kill an anencephalic fetus or a clergyman (that is the equivalent of the place) might also do the same because he thinks this way the crops will grow healthier and there will be more food for his people or some kind of political pragmatism of the ocasion.
Even then, AS A RULE this is against their "laws". Be them any kind of savage and barbarian whatsoever. And I wouldn't be surprised if I've found than even between the (hypothetical) aliens such a wrong deed was frowned upon.
Now you should ask yourself, what is the source? What is it that is engrained in us which make us too see such an act in so malevolent an eye?
Then, you can talk about the instincts of self-preservation of the tribe or any other such biological/materialistical explanation (since that is, seemly, the only valid reason your bugman brain can concede). But the reason doesn't matter that much. Anyway, the point PERSISTS.
Now, do tell me (at least as far as human reason can get) this isn't some kind of OBJECTIVE ethics we have at hands here.

[Anonymous No.17088609]

bump

[Anonymous No.17088931]

>>17074046
Because it marks a point in the arts when art was becoming self referential, and becoming more about the author, essentially what became to be known as modernity, along the same lines of Don Quijote and Montaigne's Essays.

[Anonymous No.17088955]

>>17077999
>drinking straws were invented in the 20th century
Get a better brain

[Anonymous No.17088991]

>>17079692
I think you should read more, the great writers know their art history and are certainly influenced by art historians.

[Anonymous No.17089043]

>>17086007
>>17086007
That has only happened when a society is in it's very primitive stages or when it's in full decadence. You do realize the aztecs sacrificing were seen as evil and were feared by anyone that wasn't the ruling and priest class, right? That is the reason why they fell, because everyone hated them. And human sacrifice was a huge taboo in other ancient civilizations, including the greek one, long before christian morals came into play.

[Anonymous No.17089794]

>>17085609
How could there not?