[ 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: 89 KB, 679x522, 1618438204587.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18026836 No.18026836 [Reply] [Original]

>The value of art depends on the values of the art critic.
>Most art is born as imitation, not innovation.
>The critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
>The artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
>The critic is the real artist.

>> No.18026839

Lol

>> No.18026867

>I am the real artists because I am the one that feels things when I look at it

>> No.18027119

bump

>> No.18027149

>>18026836
Why dont you paint a picasso or write an iliad then

>> No.18027173

It just means that critics are important you autists. Serious art need serious criticism.

>> No.18027185

based Piero

>> No.18027362

>>18026836
>The value of art depends on the values of the art critic.
this is nonsense, at least without any arguments to try backing it up
the value of art depends on the art itself, why would you add an external element to this?
>Most art is born as imitation, not innovation.
partially true, people certainly are imitating but it's not just that
>The critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
another baseless claim, not to mention that there can be developments in a medium without the critics defining the same
>The artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
another baseless claim
>the critic is the real artist
another baseless claim

>> No.18027382

>>18026836
This the jewiest jewry I've ever read

>> No.18027395

>>18026836
>The artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
>The critic is the real artist.
Wrong

>> No.18028306

>>18027362
Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?

A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.

>> No.18028503
File: 32 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18028503

>>18026836
Following the same line of reasoning:
>The value of loli depends on the values of the art critic.
>Most loli is born as imitation, not innovation.
>The critic, not Nabokov, is the one who defines Lolita, and rates it.
>The artist is merely a vehicle for the sexual perversion of the critic.
>The critic is the real pedophile.
>All critics should be put to death.

>> No.18028520

>>18027149
>poocasso

>> No.18028542

>>18026836
cool, I saw velvet buzzsaw on netflix too

>> No.18028603
File: 15 KB, 500x619, piero0f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18028603

>>18028542
>cool, I saw velvet buzzsaw on netflix too
is dis nigga for real?

>> No.18028610

>>18028603
I DARE U DOG, DAS WÜRDEST DU NICHT WAGEN

>> No.18028630

>>18027149
Picasso was a hack.

>> No.18028738

>>18026867
>I am the real artist because I'm the one who puts Citizen Kane on the sight and sound poll and defines what books get taught in public high schools

>> No.18029639
File: 104 KB, 533x800, 800px_COLOURBOX15783084.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18029639

>>18026836
>The value of criticism depends on the values of the /lit/fag.
>Most criticism is born as imitation, not innovation.
>The /lit/fag, not the critic, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
>The critic is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the /lit/fag.
>The /lit/fag is the real critic.

>> No.18029646

>>18027149
>picasso
kek

>> No.18029659

>>18028503
>All critics should be put to death.
I mean, you're not wrong

>> No.18029677

>>18028630
You are in denial if you think this. Except for perhaps Cézanne, name a more influential artist of the 1900s. Protip: You can't

>> No.18029698

>>18026836
What about art made before art critics existed retard

>> No.18029704

>>18028306
No one here has read art critics retard there is no inference

>> No.18029709

>>18029677
Not him but Duchamp

>> No.18029724

>>18029709
I can see where you are coming from and when it comes to the question of how art is defined, sure, Duchamp probably played a more significant role. But Picasso and Braque paved a new path in the 20th century art world in a way that I believe is unmatched.

>> No.18029728

I agree but why go as far as to say the critic is the real artist kek that's a purely bait line to get replies. Artists are critics too, if I asked Roger Federer which one of all tennis matches most compelled him he'd probably give a better answer than some low wage midwit writing website articles lmao.

>> No.18030292

>>18029677
Dali

>> No.18030512

>>18030292
This

>> No.18030587
File: 285 KB, 467x675, scarufficard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18030587

>> No.18030598

>>18026836
it takes two people to say a thing—a sayee as well as a sayer

>> No.18030605

>>18030292
very funny

>> No.18030606

>>18028738
Yes, comrad commisar.

>> No.18030612

>>18026836
cope

>> No.18030615

Critics are pathetic when they try to claim ownership of art. They make or break the artist, yes, but they never make the art.

>> No.18030654
File: 81 KB, 1108x831, F-For-Fake-1108x0-c-default.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18030654

>>18026836
>Is it art? Well, how is it valued? The value depends on opinion. Opinion depends on the experts. A faker like Elmyr makes fools of the experts, so who’s the expert? Who’s the faker?

>> No.18030669

>>18026836
>The value of art depends on the values of the art critic.
No. Critics are a small subset of the total audience for art, and their power is limited to finding the hermeneutic paths of least resistance to interpret it, so that they can obtain social status and financial reward based on mere discernment. In this way critics are hopelessly dependent on their social and historical context for succour, even moreso than artists. They are cultural bureaucrats, because those of them that take risks and generate criticism that is not adapted to success in their millieu will not remotely succeed at defining the value of art. The value of art depends on the audience, of which the critic is only a tiny part.

>Most art is born as imitation, not innovation.
This is true of all language. Imitation, or repetition, is not a fault or flaw in art. In oral culture, and even in literary culture, the reinterpretation and re-expression of older stories into newer forms is very common. No "I love you" is the same in life. So it is with art.

>The critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
The level of modernist style innovation or mere originality is not the only measure of art, and many professional critics would agree with this.

>The artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
The critic would like to believe this. Critics have always wanted to rent-seek more power from the author. Just see "The Death of the Author" for a prime example of critics mincing and whining as they try to claw power from chadly authors who have been endowed since the Romantic period with astonishing legal and cultural power in the proliferation of meaning. I especially enjoy Barthes' idea for a replacement of "author" with "scriptor". Genuinely makes me grin and want to laugh out loud. The sheer cope.

>The critic is the real artist.
No, the critic is a whore. The critic engages in the laziest possible enterprise... creative reading, and hopes or consciously plots to seduce or infect or activate the selfishness of others into copying his particular method of interpreting the text (and indeed, the world).

Fuck critics.

>> No.18031121

>>18026836
Not a big loss for literature.

>> No.18031448

>>18030669
So some anon on here shat on your writing, eh?