/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22557010]

>>22545414
>Because rightwing politics doesn't favor artists.
*stares*

Speaking of which, what were some of the other great right wing artists, like TS Eliot? And why do leftists (an artificial distinction that we should not be too attached to) tend to be so dishonest and wrong?

[Anonymous No.22557020]

>>22557010
>an artificial distinction that we should not be too attached to
the only part of your post I care about. fuck left, right, up, down, central, cunt leaning 'politics'. Art is art.
A thread died for this

[Anonymous No.22557129]

>>22557010
Wyndham Lewis

[Anonymous No.22557134]

>>22557010
>Don't go to art school or go to college for the humanities, son. There's no future there for you. You should work an honest blue collar job or at least do STEM/office work to pay the bills

>Why are the arts and humanities full of liberal faggots? Where are all the right wing artists

Gee, I wonder

[Anonymous No.22557139]

>>22557129
>Tarr, generally thought to be modelled on Lewis himself, displays disdain for the 'bourgeois-bohemians' around him, and vows to 'throw off humour' which he regards—especially in its English form—as a 'means of evading reality' unsuited to ambition and the modern world. This self-conscious attitude and the situations that it brings about are a major source of the novel's pervasive dark humour. Lewis will later clarify that there "is laughter and laughter. That of true satire is as it were tragic laughter". Kreisler, a violent German Romantic of protean energy and a failure as an artist, is in many ways the focus of the novel. An indication of the extremity of his vivid portrait is Lewis' own wondering several years later if he had, in Kreisler, anticipated the personality of Hitler.

Looks interesting

[Anonymous No.22557142]

>>22557134
false dichotomy. dont post in the thread if you cant think

[Anonymous No.22557148]

>>22557010
>this thread again

[Anonymous No.22557152]

>>22557020
Patterns in creativity should not be ignored. One side of the political spectrum discovered the objective standards of beauty that all art follows, while the other side creates things (not art) in subversion and refutation of these objective standards.

[Anonymous No.22557175]

>>22557010
First we have to define these directional tools.
Traditionally at their core rightwing is about authority and control by an elite and written codes of law and morality. Left is about freedom and acknowledgment of the wilds of nature. All that scares the rightwing.

Art that serves a tradition of elitism and institutions of control are pretty plain to see. Leftist art is about freedom and growth. The old tales of a boy leaving the comforts of home to slay a beast and/or a evil king holding a princess hostage etc. is also pretty plain when you know what you're looking for. You don't need to post Hitler. Pretty dishonest and wrong of you.

[Anonymous No.22557294]

>>22557152
>while the other side creates things (not art) in subversion and refutation of these objective standards.
i didnt make this thread to be unfair to our left sided friends, who should be guided whenever possible and not be unfairly mistreated

[Anonymous No.22557298]

>>22557152
>One side of the political spectrum discovered the objective standards of beauty
also what objective standards are these? can they determine if the totality of leonardo is better than that of michelangelo? what about ranking comparison of individual works?

[Anonymous No.22557301]

>>22557175
>Traditionally at their core rightwing is about authority and control by an elite and written codes of law and morality. Left is about freedom and acknowledgment of the wilds of nature. All that scares the rightwing.
midwit take on politics

[Anonymous No.22557304]

>>22557175
>You don't need to post Hitler. Pretty dishonest and wrong of you.
This is objectively beautiful and even if Hitler was evil the world would have been better with its completion.

[Anonymous No.22557307]

>>22557010
What do you mean "other"? Hitler's paintings weren't political.

[Anonymous No.22557321]

Art is overrated

[Anonymous No.22557440]

>>22557307
>what were some of the other great right wing artists
>like TS Eliot
Learn to read

[Anonymous No.22557443]

>>22557304
That's tacky as fuck.

[Anonymous No.22557471]

>>22557010
>Hitler
>right wing
see that's where you're wrong

[Anonymous No.22557472]

>>22557175
>The old tales of a boy leaving the comforts of home to slay a beast and/or a evil king holding a princess hostage etc
That's the traditional (right wing) hero's journey, moron

[Anonymous No.22557483]

>>22557010
>muh left muh right
american style "culture-wars" bullshit is cancer. Keeps the plebs entertained

[Anonymous No.22557515]

>>22557010
Schoenberg.

[Anonymous No.22557560]

>>22557298
>also what objective standards are these? can they determine if the totality of leonardo is better than that of michelangelo? what about ranking comparison of individual works?

The same standards that make buildings beautiful, women beautiful, music beautiful. Your question of ranking is utterly fucking useless here, it either conforms to the following or it does not.

Exclusivity, if everybody can produce a piece of art then it is not art. Art is unique and unreplicatable, a copy of a work by Jacques-Louis David is not art. Even ones done by hand as it is not a unique expression, the original is. Same with those done with computer.

If there is a vulgarity and subversion to it, such as the mentality of attacking prior artists, it is not art. If the work in question is a direct and concious refutation of the traditions that came before it, it is not art.

There must be a deeply held and realized thought/feeling that the piece in question occupies the right amount of space, the right amount of materials, there is neither too much nor too little medium applied to its creation. Possessing more than it ought to easily becomes crude. Like blacks and gold, why is a delicate gold piece more precious and beautiful than a bulky gold chain? This is why.

Crucially it does not seek to force a new, unwelcome, perspective on things. It simply captures a position or view that was naturally present and natural. If it forces you to 'question' or second-guess it is not art but propaganda.

All these and likely more are objective standards. Picrel is not art, but is pleasing.

[Anonymous No.22557572]

>>22557560
I dont think relinquishing the avant-garde to leftism is a good idea.

[Anonymous No.22557579]

>>22557572
I don't care what you think.

[Anonymous No.22557599]

>>22557560
>midwit
>redditspacer
>wignat
We've got a triple threat here, folks.

[Anonymous No.22557621]

>>22557010
Virtually everyone was "right wing" and "fascist" before the 19th century so yeah art is a right wing invention. As is science etc
Basically of right wing militaristic imperialistic ethnonationalism

[Anonymous No.22557628]

>>22557010
It's not that the "right" suck at art, it'd that Conservatives suck at art

[Anonymous No.22557661]

High modernism as a response to postmodernism is certainly rightist in spirit. Its also just better taste in art than cuckservative realist normalfaggotry.

[Anonymous No.22557674]

>>22557661
Most realist artists are leftists, generally. But idk what's going on in america
Historically, realism is a rightwing thing and leftist types denounced it in favor of throwing paint at blank canvases or calling bad technique "impressionism"

[Anonymous No.22557732]

>>22557674
But art as art in itself and not for social contextualization is a concept that is historically non-leftist. This is part of why current leftists tend away from modernist abstraction.

[Anonymous No.22557845]

>>22557010
The difference between right wing and left wing is fundamentally the difference between love of excellence and unconditional love. That’s why participation trophies are seen as left wing and belief in meritocracy is seen as right wing. Right wingers in general are psychopathic bullies, literally. They see the weak as despicable and the strong as godlike. That’s why they’re always evaluating everything in terms of superior/inferior. It’s a sort of onanistic frenzy which is very sweet in the right doses: pondering the excellence of yourself and your nation, pounding your chest with manful pride about the difficulties you’ve overcome, contemptuously sneering at those weaklings and “inferiors” who can’t match up to you. But this has its limits, and those who indulge beyond these limits are generally compensating for something. Right wing art can produce only tall, imposing structures, virile statues beaming strength and honour. But it can’t produce a Jesus or a Hamlet or a Werther or a Raskolnikov. It can’t produce a character who suffers, is weak, is defeated, is complex. And I’m not saying the left wing can either: those artists who are wingless best fly. This is becasue the true artist understands that the mystery of human life is beyond politics, that politics is but an attempt to interpret that life for pragmatic ends, and this pragmatism necessitates the incompleteness of the interpretation.

[Anonymous No.22557917]

>>22557010
The Avant Garde was fascist until post WW2. BAP discussed this. Salvador Dali famously defended Franco and of course you had Ezra Pound and Mishima. And if you're looking for people that simply aren't leftist, there's everyone pre-1900 to choose from.
>>22557134
arts have sucked far longer than this has been a meme.
>>22557175
retarded
>>22557845
>it can’t produce a Jesus or a Hamlet or a Werther or a Raskolnikov
Rightwingers understand characters suffer. It is not that they suffer that is disagreeable, but rather that they blame others for it.
also
>implying Shakespeare, Goethe, and fucking Dostoevsky were leftists
Lmao

[Anonymous No.22557926]

>>22557560
what the hell are you blabbering about you midwit pseud

even your example is a piece of art that took cues from previous generations of artists. its not totally unique, and it taking influence and inspiration from previous art, in your incredibly stupid scheme, invalidates it as art.

tranny tier stupidity

>>22557845
Sophocles was socially conservative, being a die hard patriot as seen from his life, so your post is a completely wrong mess.

[Anonymous No.22557939]

>>22557628
>It's not that the "right" suck at art, it'd that Conservatives suck at art
One thing I've noticed about right-wing artists from history who are held in high regard is that they were often weird and not typical of even a lot of rightists in their own day. A reactionary with talent, a strong sense of conviction, and a perspective that's "had it" with modernity can make for good art. Someone who's just trying to make excuses for the status quo probably isn't going to take any risks compared to someone who sees it as a total farce and that everything is going down the tubes. But most conservatives have art (and politics) lower on their list of priorities. What are they concerned about most? Their job. Their family. Their church.

>>22557674
>Most realist artists are leftists, generally. But idk what's going on in america. Historically, realism is a rightwing thing and leftist types denounced it in favor of throwing paint at blank canvases or calling bad technique "impressionism"
American social realism in the 1920s and 1930s. There were a lot of left-wing and left-leaning artists painting "common people" and workers and stuff like that. Regionalism too. A lot of them also got jobs painting murals for the WPA during the depression. It wasn't an official art style like what socialist realism became in the Soviet Union though. This is a rather left-wing perspective in a way because it's a depiction of the production process behind Hollywood.

[Anonymous No.22557942]

>>22557010
Anyone comparing the politics of writers who lived in a different era to current day politics is a midwit. They must be compared to the era they lived and thought in

[Anonymous No.22557959]

>>22557010
>Because rightwing politics doesn't favor artists.
It's funny just yesterday I read an anon claim the right was just aesthetics and nothing more. Feels good

[Anonymous No.22557985]

>>22557959
There's no contradiction

[Anonymous No.22557990]

>>22557917
I said they weren’t left wing or right wing. I said anybody who is so ideological won’t be a great artist.

And no, right wingers don’t understand that characters suffer. To even admit suffering is absolutely anathema to them. That’s why the purest right wingers hate Christianity; a God who suffers is no God to them at all.

Much of the “degenerate art” that the National Socialists banned was art of a completely apolitical kind. Introspective art which delves into the dark recesses of life & psychology, flirts with pessimism, sees tragedy in life.

For example pic related. The Sick Child by Edvard Munch (1907).

For a right winger, this is weak. It is pathetic. There is no OVERCOMING in it. It is pure suffering and no glory, no virility, no honour, no Hitler screaming at the top of his lungs in front of a grand imposing building to rows of neatly-ordered military men holding banners and saluting in unison. That is all the right wing mind understands. And as I said, this is a very sweet feeling in the correct dose, but it is a limited view of life.

[Anonymous No.22558019]

>>22557985
They write that thinking it's an own, but it needs no correction. Every word these people write are just (inept) attempts at containment anyway

[Anonymous No.22558098]

>>22557990
neurotic tranny fingers wrote this

[Anonymous No.22558203]

[Anonymous No.22558228]

>>22558203
hope he sees this bro

[Anonymous No.22558229]

>>22557010
Wasn't Hitler a socialist? That's not right wing.

[Anonymous No.22558230]

>>22557134
Even if this weren’t the case, and it is some degree, anyone who has gone through the university in the last, say twenty to forty years, can tell you that university has gone completely mask off and revealed at least one of it’s true faces: the face of dogma. The university preaches dogma and where individuals don’t fit into the dogma or preach the contrary, they’re excluded from the university and thus the professions it places people in as well as the intelligentsia more broadly. They don’t just groom certain worldviews in people. They also work to exclude others. If you’re conservative, there’s a good chance you will simply be filtered out unless you’re trained to never reveal your true sympathies. So it’s pointless to point out that conservatives want their kids to be electricians and not lawyers when you can’t even get through law school as a conservative.

[Anonymous No.22558238]

>>22558098
Proving my point entirely. Brainwashed ideologue.

[Anonymous No.22558239]

>>22558203
>art is when you slavishly imitate mass-produced postcards
do /pol/ really

[Anonymous No.22558256]

>why do leftists tend to be so dishonest and wrong?
Because they just make up shit to demand gibs.

[Anonymous No.22558262]

>>22558203
I love the fuhrer and all, but i'll have to judge him on a higher standard. That first painting of his, the perspective of the building doesn't make sense.
The other guys look like degenerates, last one is straight up pornography, so not even gonna bother judging their shit

[Anonymous No.22558273]

>>22557010
They’re moms are gay

[Anonymous No.22558280]

>>22557010
Wasn't Big H a socialist? So left?

[Anonymous No.22558591]

>>22557307
Hitler was also not "right wing", he was third position. OP is an ignoramus.

[Anonymous No.22558606]

>>22558591
which just made him the new right. youre a retarded pedant

[Anonymous No.22558652]

>>22557010
Most great conservative figures in modern history can't even be reasonably placed on a political spectrum, not just for the fact that most people in general would be considered "conservative" by our standards. Tolstoy, Eliot, Ruskin, Carlyle, etc, they all had ostensibly conservative views but it hardly translated to politics. Carlyle and Ruskin were proto-socialists, Tolstoy was basically an anarchist, Eliot wasn't politically active. It makes no sense trying to search for actual self-proclaimed right-wing artists when there are very few.

[Anonymous No.22558660]

>>22558262
its just pointing out the priorities of the bloodsucking kikes in the realm of art, im pretty sure those three who graduated were all jewish """artists""" who graduated cause of jewish nepotism

[Anonymous No.22558684]

>>22558652
rwers can claim eliot bc hes was highly conservative and didnt tip into left views, unlike tolstoy. he doesnt fit neatly, but he fits

[Anonymous No.22558700]

>>22558652
This. Why judge someone by the standards of today when they don’t live today? Bizarre..

[Anonymous No.22558757]

It's useless to judge artists on their private views. Any conservative stances Eliot might've had are obliterated by the new ground he broke in poetry.

[Anonymous No.22558829]

>>22558757
Which were right wing in character :)

[Anonymous No.22558866]

>>22557917
Salvador Dalí was a pariah among surrealists precisely because of his politics. Avant Garde in the interwar period was dominated by communists

[Anonymous No.22559754]

>>22557560
>trust me i know art
>posts phone wallpaper with hwhite nationalism png burn-filtered on
>i find it pleasing
Genuinely embarrassing post. The kind of drivel only someone devoid of the qualities they extol would produce. Your narrow interpretation of “art” and its idealized state reads like an archived 2016 /pol/ post, part of me wanted to check if this was indeed satire. In advance, don’t bother framing me as whatever flavor of liberal strawman you had in mind. People like you preemptively taint the concept of “right-wing art” and make the label the equivalent to a gold star patch within intellectual and creative spheres. You create nothing and make real artists pariahs by virtue of association, the devil in disguise.

[Anonymous No.22560232]

>>22557990
You have no idea what you're talking about. We don't deny or misunderstand suffering. Suffering is an inevitable component of life and should be faced heroically. What we despise is weakness, perversion and cowardice.

[Anonymous No.22560295]

>>22560232
Which is exactly what I said. You only allow for suffering of a non-tragic kind, ie. suffering which is overcome through sheer manly exertion of will. That is why right wing art is limited in the way I described.

[Anonymous No.22560318]

>>22557010
I like Hitler as a person, not really for what he did or his cause, but because he had the determination to actually try to do it, however, I completely agree with him being rejected from art school, I just dislike people who only draw/paint things like buildings or nature.
His work was quite sterile and unimaginative.