/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18791427]

Will we ever make Art for something greater ever again? Throughout history we made Art for God and then we switched to things like making Art for the Nation or for Nature or for our Ideals. Things like going to back to Ancient Greeks and Romans and now it's gone down the drain. We don't make Art for a purpose anymore. Do you think Art will ever have a purpose again or is that dead? What needs to change?

[Anonymous No.18791434]

>>18791427
I’ll do it

[Anonymous No.18791448]

>>18791427
I'm sure we make art for our own individual purposes, no king is commissioning churches or portraits anymore. Perhaps we are diffracted and deracinated, so we primarily make art for our own ideals, rather than a massive, cultural commission. I say when you make any art, you make art for God, because you represent God's creation, which He intended to be beautiful and artistic (which is what eliminates the "problem of evil"). To present, or attempt to, the true artistry of His creation would amount to a revelation of it. Yes, even poetry about shit and hookers, as long as it beautifies and edifies the reader and object.

Just my personal thoughts, feel free to object.

[Anonymous No.18791460]

>>18791448
Forgot image

[Anonymous No.18791471]

>>18791448
What ideals do people make art for nowadays?

[Anonymous No.18791507]

>>18791427
despite any pretentions tainting it, art was always made for aesthetic purposes

[Anonymous No.18791510]

>>18791507
No it wasn't. You don't build a cathedral for aesthetic purposes

[Anonymous No.18791515]

>>18791471

[Anonymous No.18791537]

>>18791510
a cathedral built without aesthetic concerns is neither art nor the kind of cathedral you have in mind

[Anonymous No.18791545]

>>18791537
Do you act like a retard on purpose or is this just you

[Anonymous No.18791549]

>>18791545
both desu

[Anonymous No.18791573]

>>18791471
global capital and/or nothingness

[Anonymous No.18791577]

>>18791510
A cathedral is not built for aesthetic purposes only, but every man who lays a brick or donates a dollar has his own concern in mind, so it is really just a great work involving several people. It's definitely built with aesthetic concerns in mind, I don't see what you meant by tard-shaming that anon.

>>18791471
Their own ideals, whatever those may be. Culture is fragmented today, and in America, is it not? The only issue is that the propagandistic art they make (in the case of social justice, or something adjacent) isn't beautiful, so it points to something lower, unlike the cathedral.

[Anonymous No.18791581]

>>18791471
to satisfy their own ego

if you've ever met a modern 'artist' you will know this is true

[Anonymous No.18791594]

>>18791577
No one said it didn't have aesthetic concerns. My point is that it was built for God. Atheists don't build cathedrals

[Anonymous No.18791613]

>>18791427
watch ''why beauty matters'' from roger scruton if you don't. is a good way to undertand this

[Anonymous No.18791617]

I'm actively making art to glorify God. Wish me luck, Anons.

[Anonymous No.18791676]

>>18791617
In what medium?

[Anonymous No.18791693]

do u guys like blade-e?

[Anonymous No.18791699]

>>18791427
read Hegel's aesthetics

greco-roman art was nigger-tier

[Anonymous No.18791722]

>>18791617
I never wish anyone on this shitass board good luck.

Good-luck and Godspeed.

[Anonymous No.18791774]

>>18791594
a cathedral is still a cathedral without being beautiful. the building is for god. the beauty is for beauty's sake. non-religious buildings are made beautiful for beauty's sake also.

[Anonymous No.18791784]

>>18791774
The beauty is wrapped in with it being for God. You wouldn't make an ugly building for God. Either way modern buildings aren't made for beauty anymore at least not in the US

[Anonymous No.18791810]

>>18791784
god was the best excuse we had to work so hard on something as completely useless yet inexplicably valuable as beauty. if we dont make beautiful things anymore, its because we value beauty less

[Anonymous No.18792011]

>>18791471

Unironically SJW tier faggotry. It's an active utopian project with a vast following among the artistic communities.

The real question is why are the macro narratives for which art is made less conducive to great work.

[Anonymous No.18792060]

>>18791427
Art should be for the sake of art. Nothing else. The problem now isn't that art has no purpose, it's quite the opposite really.

[Anonymous No.18792095]

On a slightly different note, why aren't today's gargantuan technocrats like Gates, Bezos, or Musk financing the up-and-coming artist savants? They could become the Medicis on steroids. Are they just not interested?

[Anonymous No.18792100]

>>18791427
Pagan art peaked with the Celts and Scythians, but had degenerated by Antiquity. Medieval art was the greatest ever made. Most of the Rennaisance artists, especially the ones who rebelled against the medieval spirit and worked in the spirit of humanism, were nothing but the sakimichans of their day. The reaction to this decadence gave us El Greco, Blake, the Symbolists, and the post impressionists. The time for grand movements is long gone, as Simone Weil said, the great artists of the future won't belong to the collective but will be NEETs

[Anonymous No.18792117]

>>18791676
Prose and verse. It's a big story that will be told in both poetry and prose. My aim is to conquer the written word and make a work of art that towers above the rest of this age.

[Anonymous No.18792125]

>>18792117
post excerpt

[Anonymous No.18792128]

>>18792060
>Art for art's sake
Based and underrated post

[Anonymous No.18792145]

>>18791427
Immediately get rid of the idea that artists have always worked for a transcendental higher reason and now isn't the case somehow. First of all most of these faggots who did religious art did so because they were commissioned by patrons, and not at all out of genuine religious or personal devotion. Second, their art wasn't even good, you think it was good because you have a falsified view of history and the people in it, you bow to "the classics" without asking yourself why. The best art is imaginative and individualistic, as demonstrated by the end of the 19th/ beginning of the 20th century, a golden age for freedom of artistic expression, and an age of unprecedented discoveries in art. The reason that art sucks right now is because it's made for money and numbers, and our cutlure values quantity over quality. I agree with what >>18792060 said.

[Anonymous No.18792151]

Start making art now

What is objectively important? What needs to be said and revealed? You know you have answers or partial answers. Why aren't you making art that reveals these truths to people who can't see them yet? You gay?

[Anonymous No.18792158]

>>18791510
True, you mostly do it for the clout.

[Anonymous No.18792161]

>>18792095
Because they're spiritually desecated nerds. Cornelius Vanderbilt was into illegal street horse & buggy racing well into his 60s, only stopping at the age of 70 after he fractured his skull for the second time. Compare this to Bezos going to space and woo-ing as he floats around in zero-g, or Musk posting old memes on twitter. We've lost something in reducing success to the purely intellectual.

[Anonymous No.18792162]

>>18792151
>You gay?
I'm gay

[Anonymous No.18792222]

>>18792151
>Why aren't you making art that reveals these truths
misguided objective. not what arts about

[Anonymous No.18792283]

>>18791471
for me nature, life, and ego

[Anonymous No.18792325]

>>18792145
that's exactly when it started going downhill. art peaked during the baroque period and hasnt recovered since.

[Anonymous No.18792333]

>>18791427
Which God was Donatello paying tribute to when he sculpted his David, OP?

[Anonymous No.18792365]

>>18792325
You have such a shitty and basic opinion that I won't even bother arguing. I see exactly where you derive it from in your mind and the justifications you might have for thinking like this. It's basic as fuck. Well, I can't help someone who knows and understands nothing about art. Keep huffing the copium, you must be an extremely boring person.

[Anonymous No.18792378]

>>18792365
Providing no arguments, while pretending you have them (but choose not to disclose them) won't make you loom clever.

[Anonymous No.18792379]

>>18791427
How about hollowing out a mountain and building a 200 foot tall clock designed to run for 10,000 years?
https://longnow.org/clock/

[Anonymous No.18792380]

>>18792378
look*

[Anonymous No.18792401]

>>18792378
Provide your own arguments for why the homogenous, formulaic, illustrative, vapid, I will even say communal, baroque period is better than everything that has been discovered (yes, I say DISCOVERED! Because we are speaking of real discoveries) in the arts afterwards.

[Anonymous No.18792408]

>>18792365
then dont reply retard lmao. i dont care about your gay little ramble.
you type like a prissy soccer mom.

[Anonymous No.18792413]

>>18792408
>Y-you're gay and a mom! >:(

[Anonymous No.18792419]

>>18792413
i didnt say that though, did i? you gotta read more carefully.

[Anonymous No.18792426]

>>18791448
Art is nothing but a consumer product now.
You're not going to practice something for tens of years just for the heck of it. Yes people do art as a hobby. You will never have a hobbyist Bernini.
>>18791471
coom

[Anonymous No.18792430]

>>18791581
that's not ego, that's money laundering

[Anonymous No.18792433]

>>18792060
>Art should be for the sake of art. Nothing else.
I do that. You'll never see it though.

[Anonymous No.18793734]

>>18791427
>>18791471
Everything and nothing in particular, we're living in an age of pluralism. Any other answer is false.

[Anonymous No.18793745]

>>18792117
Bump to hear more from this anon

[Anonymous No.18793750]

>>18791427
It seems to me that art is predominantly made for humanistic purposes today. It’s a distorted, base, “inclusive” maybe even sub- sort of humanism but it’s humanism, the same humanism it’s been for at least a few hundred years. Call it “sub-humanism”, “post-humanism”, “pan-humanism”, whatever. I still see it essentially as humanism.

[Anonymous No.18794021]

>>18792333
Wise post.

[Anonymous No.18794053]

>>18792401
If you don't understand the inmense artistic significance of the Baroque then you have the aesthetic and intellectual capabilities of a literal child.

[Anonymous No.18794064]

People like to shit on /v/, but they are enjoying mythic poetry, theater, the cathedral, the symphony, and the kouroi.
For better or worse, art is being patronized by the investors and modern public for the screen and game console.
And it's not an altogether bad state of affairs, frankly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rPxiXXxftE

[Anonymous No.18794080]

>>18791427
>We don't make Art for a purpose anymore
Categorically false

[Anonymous No.18794133]

>>18794064
>/v/
>enjoying vidya
I don't think so

[Anonymous No.18794175]

>>18792333
>>18794021
What’s wise about it? David is a biblical hero.

[Anonymous No.18794192]

>>18794064
I see what you’re trying to get it but let’s not pretend there’s anything transcendent behind this or of a higher order at all really. Although beautiful, these are products for mass production and entertainment almost exclusively. BOTW is fun and pretty but that’s all it is.

[Anonymous No.18794303]

>>18794175
Yea *licks lips*..

[Anonymous No.18794342]

>>18792100
Shut the fuck up you gormless tard.

[Anonymous No.18794352]

>>18791427
Anon, a decline does not mean things will never be good again, though I highly doubt it will be within our lifetime.

[Anonymous No.18794359]

>>18792060
I mean this sounds nice but it's not how great art has been created throughout history

[Anonymous No.18794364]

>>18792145
>you think it was good because you have a falsified view of history and the people in it, you bow to "the classics" without asking yourself why.
Opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.18794379]

Posted this in the other art thread

>“Art is a gift from God and should be done for His glory, to enlighten, inspire and to call people to a state of contemplation, so that they can experience the peace which emanates from the same source that we all have inside us.

>Visionary art is not surrealism or fantasy, it’s a mission where the artist acknowledges, searches and allows divine inspiration to perform the work beyond ego, beyond the latest trends or influences, to awaken in people the infinite within themselves. The function of art is not to portray things, but rather to reveal the divine essence in them; in the whole symbolism of my paintings—roses, galaxies, keys, portals, crystals, gems, butterflies, eagles, trees, waterfalls… there are elements that always appear with a spiritual substratum beyond the forms portrayed.”

— Tuco Amalfi, via The Visionary Art of Tuco Amalfi

The Essence of Soul

>“For the soul, contracting herself wholly into a union with herself, and into the centre of universal life, and removing the multitude and variety of all-various powers, ascends into the highest place of speculation, from whence she will survey the nature of beings. For if she looks back upon things posterior to her essence, she will perceive nothing but the shadows and resemblances of beings: but if she returns into herself, she will evolve her own essence, and the reasons she contains. And at first indeed she will as it were only behold herself; but when by her knowledge she penetrates more profoundly in her investigations, she will find intellect seated in her essence, and the universal orders of beings: but when she advances into the more interior recesses of herself, and as it were into the sanctuary of the soul, she will be enabled to contemplate, with her eyes closed to corporeal vision, the genus of the gods, and the unities of beings. For all things reside in us, after a manner correspondent to the nature of the soul: and on this account we are naturally enabled to know all things, by exciting our inherent powers, and images of whatever exists.”

— Proclus, Theology of Plato

>“Once in a while it is different and better. When Handel wrote The Messiah he believed he was in the presence of the Lord. I believe it. I believe the highest purposes of art are to please God and glorify Him. These are the motives He Himself honours and which permits the artist to approach nearest the secret realm of sublime perfection he seeks and always knew was there, in his heart.”

— Cliff McReynolds

>“The paintings are of those moments of understanding when a great pattern emerges from a chaos of information. It is as if the veil of illusion is lifted, allowing a glimpse of the true nature of the universe. The painting is a celebration of this event. It represents the culmination of one part of the journey and the beginning of another.”

— Sheila Rose

[Anonymous No.18794386]

>>18792145
>HURRR ANCIENT ARTISTS WERE ACTUALLY SOULLESS MERCENARIES WHO DIDN'T BELIEVE IN ANYTHING JUST LIKE MEEEEE
kys

[Anonymous No.18794388]

>You will never love Art well, till you love what she mirrors better.

—John Ruskin

>“In beauty find the rhythmic music born
>Of the majestic movement of the spheres;

>The colour songs of sunset and of morn,
>The symphony of the eternal years.

>Spirit of beauty, guide us with Thy might
>Lest earth, grown blind, seek not the living Light.”

— M.E. Robbins

>A genius is one who learns to detect that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, to grasp the thought and to know that what is true for him is true for all men. In every work of genius we recognise our own rejected thoughts, they come back to us with a certain elicited majesty.

—Ralph Waldo Emerson

>In a style of fantasy realism, [Benny H.V. Andersson’s] universes are awe-inspiring. His blissful visions show us that there is a vastly dimensional world within our grasp through meditation, prayer and spiritual direction.

—Manhattan Arts International

>“To me, inspiration for my art is a combination of great artists of the past and the inner visions I see today. In my own way I explore realms of light and colour on my canvases. Each painting is sometimes like a soul-searching journey in itself. It is a great moment at those times when my art serves as an inspiration for viewers to find and release their own hopes and dreams.”

— Benny H.V. Andersson

[Anonymous No.18794457]

>>18794133
heh. I do know that's the meme, but I lurk and post there, and do actually enjoy vidya.
I'm trying to communicate uncynically and without irony that good art is still being made.
I'm not even a "videogames are art" fag, they're clearly not ... consider that Chess is "game" whether the board is marble with artisanally crafted pieces, or mass produced cardboard and plastic ... so it is with whether or not videogames are art ... but the "board and pieces" aspect of games are becoming increasingly artisanal.
I'm a little over people like OP whining that transcendent art is no longer being made :((( and overlooking a popular medium which regularly combines virtually everything from human tradition (drawing, 2D and 3D design, painting, cinematography, architecture, orchestral composition, mythic poetry, etc. etc. etc.) into a mass distributable synthesis.
OP can attempt to convince me art for "something greater" is dead AFTER he's played the Halo trilogy, understood its heritage in Norse mythology and Wagnerian opera, its architecture and its roots in the western esoteric tradition, its allegory for the apotheosis of the western soul, and so on. Then he can try to argue purposeful art is no longer made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9Ezd2FqxAU

[Anonymous No.18794466]

>>18794192
Maybe to dull and uninitiated eyes.

[Anonymous No.18794969]

>>18792125
>>18793745
I don't want to post any excerpts because I'm determined to try and do something with it. The first book is done and I'm looking for places to put it, assuming one of the agents I've queried doesn't take an interest in it.

I will say that I had to fiddle around for the right meter to use for the narrative poetry. Blank verse was too constricting, it didn't have enough syllables for the story I'm telling and the words I'm using. I wound up having to invent my own meter, with thirteen syllables, and I'm still figuring out its "rules." Like, I can write it, but I write it more by feeling than logic at this point, and it's trial-and-error to determine how it "should" and "shouldn't" be, with me making notes of which lines particularly work and noting their metrical features, their stresses and stops and such.

[Anonymous No.18795052]

>>18791427
>We don't make Art for a purpose anymore.
Sure we do. For example, Breaking Bad. You can't watch that and tell me it was only made with money in mind, it's obvious that great passion went into it.

[Anonymous No.18795103]

>art thread
>full of wrong generation faggots
Why is /lit/ like this? Do you refuse to watch movies with sound?

[Anonymous No.18795111]

>>18795052
Breaking Bad has overt references to alchemical mysteries too. Plenty there for people with eyes to see it.
...
A difficulty with so much, if not most, modern artistic expression being conveyed digitally though is that interest, talent, and demand for art and architecture beyond the screen is waning when so much beauty is accessible at our fingertips.

[Anonymous No.18795501]

>>18794969
Okay but, what's it about?

[Anonymous No.18795588]

>>18794352
this, art will be beautiful once again, hell probably more beautiful than we can currently imagine. The problem is the decline of humanity wont let us see it, even if we get lucky and 360 right now, art is forged from time, peace and some sense of harmony in the world. We can make art no matter the time or place but what we churn out can only be a reflection of current society, anything that isnt usually feels forced or not close enough to true beauty like those in the past have done.
>>18791427
we dont make art with purpose because there is no purpose anymore. Theres honestly nothing to do, nothing to feel, its been said before but we've killed "God" (or whatever you want to call god instead). There is no reason to do anything in reality, you can tell yourself there is but deep down you know there isnt. None of our jobs matter, societies and families have been successfully atomized, and we attack our earth in the name of production. Art is just like religion it exists to display a society's, country's, culture's, etc. understanding of the world and what they see in it. When the average person is a miserable being gods and symbolism lose meaning or are attacked, and art is replaced by things like globohomo art and brand logos

[Anonymous No.18795597]

>>18795103
>Do you refuse to watch movies with sound?
I only watch movies with the sound turned off.

[Anonymous No.18795611]

>>18795111
>Breaking Bad has overt references to alchemical mysteries too
this is the problem I have with modern art that's good, its always in influence of something else or is framing some story or information from the past. I dont think the problem isnt that media isnt "good" I think the real problem is that humanity technically hasnt made anything original in hundreds of years, something is always echoing something else it feels like

[Anonymous No.18795634]

>>18795611
Breaking Bad is good and original, but it's an exception I guess.

[Anonymous No.18795967]

>>18795611
>this is the problem I have with modern art that's good, its always in influence of something else or is framing some story or information from the past
>I think the real problem is that humanity technically hasnt made anything original in hundreds of years, something is always echoing something else it feels like
No work of art in history has not drawn from the past. It's the prima materia from which we create. You might be tempted to point to Greek sculpture or epics, but they were reproducing nature and mythologizing historical events, respectively.
In our time we've advanced the mythologies of space travel and cybernetic society into new areas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6ywMnbef6Y
In a draft screenplay of 2001, apparently the "star child" at the end of the film was going to return to Earth and disable humanity's nuclear weapons: turning it into a story about humanity evolving into beings that could control time and space with their minds. A story about apotheosis, without reference to any gods of the past, only to man's innate divine nature.
This is mirrored directly in Star Wars 1977, with Luke realizing his psychic ability to destroy the "Death Star" (a metaphor for the potential for nuclear superweapons to destroy the planet).
These are new themes being explored in the collective conciousness: man as the master of his destiny, and not gods.
Also the specter of AI, a man made idol with the capabilities of a god, as either the one true enemy of the Superman, or as the logical evolutionary progeny of mankind produced through our intellect, rather than our physical passions.
Then if you are witting, you can see the recursive or circular problem: that if mankind is to become gods, or to create gods in their image, if we are to control time, did we not create ourselves in the beginning? The Tielhard Point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Cmf4BuNgg
What chaos could be released by young abortive gods?
What worlds would immature tyrannical children create?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2Hy96sOnq8

[Anonymous No.18796238]

>>18792145
Shut up, Valentine.

[Anonymous No.18796276]

>>18791427
>Throughout history we made Art for God
No one made 'art for God' for free, it was always commissions from the church that was ultra-wealthy because it was getting tithes from all of Europe.

[Anonymous No.18797225]

are there any contemporary artists painting in the old styles? grand landscapes or portentous scenes in perhaps baroque style or something like that. surely some art school faggot is trying it somewhere

[Anonymous No.18797247]

>>18795501
It's science fiction that also involves Platonic metaphysics and miracles.

[Anonymous No.18798693]

>>18792145
>nuine religious or personal devotion
Michelangelo and Bernini had personal devotion to the catholic faith.

[Anonymous No.18799385]

>>18798693
State requirement. No one can know if he felt attached to that Roman bureaucracy you call a church

[Anonymous No.18799548]

>>18791427
>Will we ever make Art for something greater ever again? Throughout history we made Art for God

i really hate this notion coming from conservatives that you have to believe in god if you want to create great works of art, that´s downright stupid statement, only some close minded person with no real life experiences would´ve said something like that

>but you have to believe in a higher ideal to create something good!!!!!!

how about you want to create something higher than yourselves because you want to achieve arete, like the ancient greeks did it? or how about you put an abstract ideal like perfection (a metaphysical example that doesn´t involve some supreme being) as a way to create something higher, instead of an stupid notion like god or a god

[Anonymous No.18799551]

>>18799548
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.18799576]

>>18799551
of course, you can´t refute my argument

[Anonymous No.18799591]

>>18799548
>you have to believe in god if you want to create great works of art
without some form of spirituality the only goal of art is to activate the neurons in the monkey brain.
when you drop spirituality, religion, call it whatever, you have condemned yourself to scientific materialism. Your idea that you have have "morals" is a residue of the dead religiosity in you. Once that is gone, you cannot think of morality as anything but pointless, since we're all flesh robots with no real free well, piloted by chemicals and electrical impulses.

[Anonymous No.18799651]

>>18799591
>without some form of spirituality the only goal of art is to activate the neurons in the monkey brain.
>when you drop spirituality, religion, call it whatever, you have condemned yourself to scientific materialism

well you have to be close minded to think that religion has a monopoly on metaphysics, we make art derived from nature, not from god, as essentially art is a mirror of how real life works.

you´re just basically promoting the status quo if you infused your meaning from god, that is, since god is the supreme, you aren´t allowed to questioned it, and falls flat even worst since religion was used as a bulwark for ethical behavior, at least you could get away with that in polytheistic societies since there were many gods with conflicting views, but in a monotheistic society, good luck with that, there´s a reason someone like Mozart didn´t put god as his inspiration, otherwise he would be just another run of the mill composer, he rather make operas about simple people than gods


>Once that is gone, you cannot think of morality as anything but pointless, since we're all flesh robots with no real free well, piloted by chemicals and electrical impulses.

i´m pretty sure that as long as you live in a community/society, morality is part of you, the only way a human can be amoral if he/she becomes a hermit

[Anonymous No.18799663]

>>18797225
>are there any contemporary artists painting in the old styles? grand landscapes or portentous scenes
Well socialist realism is making a comeback.

https://youtu.be/XIn5g7BskjQ?t=549

[Anonymous No.18799665]

“The downfall of classical ideals made all men potential artists, and therefore bad artists. When art depended on solid construction and the careful observance of rules, few could attempt to be artists, and a fair number of these were quite good. But when art, instead of being understood as creation, became merely an expression of feelings, then anyone could be an artist, because everyone has feelings.”

Pessoa

[Anonymous No.18799737]

>>18799591
>you have condemned yourself to scientific materialism
https://youtu.be/R3mr5OC9Jwg?t=528

[Anonymous No.18799868]

>>18799651
>we make art derived from nature
and what is nature? you're deluding yourself. animals are meat robots, there is absolutely nothing according to science that says I'm doing something "wrong" if I boil a dog alive. Science only says that if you are culturally wired to think of dogs as valuable you'll have a negative response, but that's just chemicals. The ethics here aren't ethics, this is just a problem that you solve by doing shit behind closed doors. This is modern "ethics".
>i´m pretty sure that as long as you live in a community/society, morality is part of you
This is already naive bullshit given how everyone's settling in a comfortable bubble of ethical relativism. As the religious, spiritual framework of humanity, (which is far stronger than any church or creed) is replaced by this scientific materialism generation after generation, people will drop ethics completely, and the question of ethics will be moved from actions to the response, it's no longer a problem if someone does horrible things because the issue is not that person's actions but your response instead, so you prevent that response from happening.

[Anonymous No.18799891]

>>18797225
Roberto Ferri

[Anonymous No.18799916]

>>18799868
>and what is nature?

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, material world or universe. "Nature" can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature


>there is absolutely nothing according to science that says I'm doing something "wrong" if I boil a dog alive. Science only says that if you are culturally wired to think of dogs as valuable you'll have a negative response, but that's just chemicals. The ethics here aren't ethics, this is just a problem that you solve by doing shit behind closed doors.

well, you say you´re culturally wired, it´s a matter of preference and personal viewpoint seeing dogs as meat robots instead of human companions, some humans eat dogs (the chinese) some humans don´t (the western world), it´s a matter of preference


>As the religious, spiritual framework of humanity, (which is far stronger than any church or creed) is replaced by this scientific materialism generation after generation, people will drop ethics completely, and the question of ethics will be moved from actions to the response, it's no longer a problem if someone does horrible things because the issue is not that person's actions but your response instead, so you prevent that response from happening.

yet even then, we live according to set rules of morals and ethics, i don´t think it´s naive, it´s realist, i´m an atheist but i don´t go killing children because it´s not according to my principles, my personal ethics, humans even in the prehistoric age knew about this, there are set rules in societies and there are personal rules, it depends on how much value you put (personal choice) in one or another, or both


why do you think social justice exists? there are still moral fervor even without religion/spiritualism

[Anonymous No.18800010]

>>18799891
The internet makes this shit so easy to consume.

[Anonymous No.18800039]

>>18799868
Even without le Science reducing things to particles and chemicals, Is/Ought would still apply. Even if a dog wasn't a meat robot, it would still be impossible to give a reason for why you ought not to kill it. Even if there was a God who wrote moral laws, his existence would not be a reason you Ought to obey him, it might cause you to obey him in the same way chemicals in my brain cause me to do this or that but it couldn't be a reason for it.

[Anonymous No.18800100]

>>18799916
>why do you think social justice exists? there are still moral fervor
social justice is far more concerned with personal liberty than it is about morals
SJWs do not give a shit about ethics, they want to be todl "yes" by society whatever they do, and as I said, when society is completely atomized and everyone lives in a bubble, that last bastion of morality which is personal conduct becomes completely obsolete. As you already said,
>it´s a matter of preference
replace dogs with children, if you don't interfere with the first case because "it's a matter of preference" then why should you objectively care about the second?
>b-but they're human
In complete relativism, why isn't this an opinion? There are Africans who think Pygmy people are not human and they eat them. Do you deny them their thoughts so they conform to your idea of "humanity"? Why would you then not force the Chinese to stop boiling dogs alive on an ethical basis? Not now, because we haven't severed that umbilical cord already, but once we do, the only real solution to all these complicated problems, the only way to ensure harmony will be either to 1) modify the individuals so they do not have a reaction to negative stimuli, which is already happening and 2) atomize individuals so that they simply do not see the source of negative stimuli. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If you think this is unrealistic, just look at how every unpleasant aspect of modernity such as the industrial pollution, experimentation, sweatshop slavery, or meat farming, are being kept under lock and key somewhere in the world where nobody can see it and it's extremely effective. As long as nobody sees, it's all good. If you look at ethics as a problem within the individual instead of an objective problem, tied to a supreme "truth" and "good", then it only makes sense to look at this issue this way and the final configuration of this ideal society is exactly this: everyone being trained and pilled and channeled to live in his own bubble and ignore what everyone else does, while these basic feelings become eroded generation after generation. Then one day it will be possible to throw away the blinders and witness this world of absolute freedom and feel nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.18800206]

>>18800100
>social justice is far more concerned with personal liberty than it is about morals

stop lying, their whole crusade its about purity doing the "right thing", it´s moral and (narcissistic) at it´s core

>replace dogs with children, if you don't interfere with the first case because "it's a matter of preference" then why should you objectively care about the second?

i meant to say that different societies have their own distinct set of morals and ethics, even in set societies there´s always people who don´t give a shit and murder, rape or cause mayhem, this isn´t like a videogame that you hit peak religiosity and everyone is a saint, real life doesn´t work like that

>In complete relativism, why isn't this an opinion? There are Africans who think Pygmy people are not human and they eat them. Do you deny them their thoughts so they conform to your idea of "humanity"?

they are part of the human species, so what? do you think gengis khan wasn´t human because he destroyed countless countries and commited genocides? the fact that africans wants to eat pygmies because some superstition is part of their tradition/culture, you have to live in a bubble if you think all societies in the world conform to the western notion of morality

i don´t know what the fuck are you trying to argue with me, when i first replied to this thread, i was talking about art and the silly notion that you have to be religious in order to make high art, i wasn´t talking about ethics nor morality so fuck off christfag

[Anonymous No.18800211]

>I-It's going to happen again... r-right guys???
Just kidding. We're doomed.

[Anonymous No.18800338]

Is art made with political purposes inherently ugly/ unappealing?

[Anonymous No.18800541]

>>18791427
People always made art for money.

[Anonymous No.18800616]

>>18800338
Only if you're left wing

[Anonymous No.18800641]

>>18791427
>we
are you asking whether someone else will make it for you so you can take credit?

[Anonymous No.18801263]

>>18800338
I think it depends on how much genuine passion and faith you have for the politics you are pushing. An example is the majority of SJW art is complete garbage because it's not made according to a true belief that the politics will make the world better, it's all about getting more attention and virtue signaling in front of your peers. None of the people who draw this kumbaya shit believe in anything, they just see a way of making themselves look good when they push the politics and it's completely transparent to anyone who isn't 14 years old or retarded.

[Anonymous No.18801278]

>>18800541
>People always made art for money.
This is fucking bullshit. People GOT PAID FOR THEIR FUCKING WORK. They did not "make art for money" just because they got fucking paid. There was genuine passion behind the arts, this is not mutually exclusive with getting fucking paid. I hate this stupid retarded mindset.

[Anonymous No.18801338]

>>18801278
Unclench.

[Anonymous No.18801353]

>>18791471
Transgenderism

[Anonymous No.18801363]

>>18791471
Social justice, existential authenticity or some variety of moral valuation.

[Anonymous No.18801370]

>>18795967
This was an interesting post.

[Anonymous No.18801415]

>>18801338
You think this way because you are a slime, you cannot imagine what passion is so you picture this weird beyond bohemian martyrdom for the cause of "art", done entirely for free, for the sake of "art", it doesn't fucking work that way. You can only cultivate a passion for something if you get some sort of returns from it but you cannot imagine that, this idea is too inconvenient so you go with this take like "artists were all mercenary kikes, they did all this great shit but it was actually just like today's furry vore porn commissions". I fucking detest this mindset, you'd rather dismiss thousands of years of art all to keep your fucking penny-pinching little cum-laden, greasy mouse-clicking consumer bugman hands clear of your fucking wallet. You hate the idea that you need to give something in order to get great art, you hate the idea that things just don't come up overnight like mushrooms but they need to be cultivated, and they need an environment to flower. This one fucking sentence makes me so fucking mad on so many levels because it encapsulates why the whole fucking world has gone to shit.

[Anonymous No.18801497]

>>18801415
Based

[Anonymous No.18802127]

>>18800338
Yes, without exception. At least those parts of that art taint the whole work

[Anonymous No.18802406]

>>18797247
So what's it about

[Anonymous No.18803468]

>>18801415
there are degrees of people. some are more of a person than others, some less.

[Anonymous No.18803706]

>>18791427
>What needs to change?
your attitude

[Anonymous No.18803753]

>>18791510
The aesthetics is the bait, not the point.
KJV bible is the most popular among converts who actually read the bible, because of its aesthetics.
Who the fuck doesnt like beauty?

[Anonymous No.18803781]

>>18803753
For aesthetics... I want the English translation of the original Luther bible. Why has no one done this yet?

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.18803934]

>>18791427
Art has not stopped being great, but, rather, its pearls remain invisible to the vulgus, which has been enabled to infest the world in quantity, and productivity, since better times; the known unknowns, and the roads less traveled, will not stop being recorded & reified until the end of time.

[Anonymous No.18803958]

>>18792145
Horrendous, awful, sickening post.

[Anonymous No.18805594]

>>18801415
You really typed all this dumb shit just because I said unclench

[Anonymous No.18805741]

>>18805594
retard

[Anonymous No.18805752]

>>18791427
test

[Anonymous No.18805794]

>>18799891
>Tristezze-della-luna-olio
what that other arm? out her fanny?

[Anonymous No.18805814]

>>18791507
On the contrary, things are made aesthetic to serve a purpose.

[Anonymous No.18806800]

This mindset that you are aiming for some sort of transcendence or 'God', or something greater than life with Art is the problem

Farts can be art. Everything can be art. We are living in a post-modern world. We are all artists.

And that's the beauty of it.

[Anonymous No.18806822]

>>18806800
you have never produced anything of value and never will

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.18807186]

All of the art I have ever produced (though of poor quality, I know) has been for the sake of contemplation of god and praise of God. You can do the same in this very moment if you desired.

[Anonymous No.18807247]

>>18801278
No, plenty of them did make art for money (or for their lords, whatever). The concept of the independent / starving artist is recent.

[Anonymous No.18807281]

>>18807247
see >>18801415 then hang yourself