Books about what art is?

[Anonymous No.22643634]

What are some books which attempt to answer the question of what art is?

[Anonymous No.22643637]

>>22643634
https://vimeo.com/549715999
love my nigga roger scruton on this question

[Anonymous No.22643640]

>>22643637
Anyone other than scrotum?

[Anonymous No.22643643]

>>22643640
>other than scrotum
(You) have literal shit taste and are probably a commie eurofuck so eat shit & die
captcha: V0MYj

[Anonymous No.22643646]

>>22643634
I wanna know what art is
I want you to show me
I wanna feel what art is
I know you can show me (hey)

For real though read Heidegger's 'The origin of the work of art'

[Anonymous No.22643653]

>>22643634
Art = overrated shit

[Anonymous No.22643662]

>>22643634
There is literally an entire field dedicated to it. As usual, start with Plato.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-aesthetics/

[Anonymous No.22643663]

>>22643646
fucking based

[Anonymous No.22643675]

>>22643643
It was autocorrect, relax. I’m phone posting.

[Anonymous No.22643742]

>>22643634
>>22643637
>>22643662
nothing but pseuds who can only copypasta philosophy

[Anonymous No.22644666]

>>22643634
Let's rather discuss it, art needs an artist. Some art is lesser then other, artists which frequently create such art are lesser artists. The primary distinction between a good and bad artist is skill of presentation. The primary distinction between good and bad art therefore is skill of presentation (whatever the artist may present). Therefore art needs skill, skill obtained either through talent or through work. Art is not only meaning, it is meaning brought to life through skill and work.

[Anonymous No.22644674]

>>22643637
Anyone other than Mrs. Ballsack over here?

[Anonymous No.22644724]

>>22644666
How do you judge whether a work shows skill? Whether it's good or bad?

[Anonymous No.22644853]

>>22643634
Only in the English language (worst language in the world) do people need to have cringeworthy debates about the definition of a word.

[Anonymous No.22644976]

He has another one called On Ugliness

[Anonymous No.22645019]

>>22643653
filtered

[Anonymous No.22645023]

>>22643742
OP asked for texts that attempt to define art...

[Anonymous No.22645068]

>>22643634
Aesthetics is one of the most obnoxious, but kind of entertaining fields of philosophy depending how you look at it. Another anon pointed towards Plato. I'm usually not a "start with the greeks" type, but startin with the greeks re: aesthetics isn't a bad idea. Then peep Kant's thoughts on it from Crit of Judgement. Encyclopedias are fine for this.

If you want some texts that get right to the heart of the contemporary problem of what art is, crawl around the essays of Arthur Danto and those who disagreed with him. He was a famous art critic who, after seeing Warhol's "Brillo Box" kind of lost his shit. He generally outlines that the subsumption of art into theory makes traditional aesthetics near impossible to apply to modern art.

Or just watch some Brad Troemel videos idk

[Anonymous No.22645079]

>>22643634
Tolstoy has a good one, 'What is Art?', as well as 'The Meaning of the Creative Act' and 'The Crisis of Art' by Berdyaev

[Anonymous No.22645101]

Art is paying to experience emotions
There, answered it for you

[Anonymous No.22645165]

>>22643634
check out this little number

>>22643637
spurn the scrote at all costs

[Anonymous No.22645336]

>>22644724
Not that anon, but I'm mostly agree with him. And to that question, I would say that you judge skill on a number of factors. There isn't just one thing that determines skill. But the majority of it can be boiled down to comparison to previous works, or other people's works. I know it's not a popular idea to compare works to one another, but I don't subscribe the hoity toity hyper subjectivity crap. You can tell when one work looks better than another. You know you're witnessing skill, when you look at the new work, and it's more refined than the previous work.

Another large factor is artist intent. Because the intent of the artist informs us of the direction the art is meant to go. If the artist is trying to achieve A, you can't criticize them because they didn't achieve B. You have to judge whether or not the work achieved A. And how well it managed to do that... in comparison.

[Anonymous No.22645345]

aside from plato and maybe scruton, nothing but empty texts mentioned

[Anonymous No.22645409]

>>22645336
Skill shows that you're sensitive not only to your materials but to what's most interesting in previous works and the culture around (which, in an important sense, are also your materials). This is why janky experiments in perspective in early Renaissance paintings still feel fresh and powerful: they were working hard to bring this new form of perception to life, and it's that energy you feel, not a particular set of perspective lines (which bad 90s video games could achieve much more effectively). It's skill as this kind of subconscious knack for feeling what's alive in your culture that makes good authors instinctively averse to cliche, even when those cliches were once charming, even beautiful innovations in the language. I think skill is less about corresponding, in ever greater perfection as culture progresses, to some set of objective ideals of what looks or sounds good (golden ratio bullshit etc.) than it is about expressing that confident, deep perception in a way that lets others perceive the same thing. When you look at the neolithic shaman's mask, you don't think, 'This sucks, I could pay a guy £50 to make the same thing;' you think, 'The guy who made this saw the potential in the gnarled dead tree and the faces lit up around the campfire.' Is that objective or subjective? I don't know - those seem like dead-end terms in which to think about it.

[Anonymous No.22645473]

>>22645409
You're touching on artist intent. Though you probably don't think of it in that term.

>they were working hard to bring this new form of perception to life
And so you see the trajectory of their work.

>and it's that energy you feel, not a particular set of perspective lines (which bad 90s video games could achieve much more effectively)
With perspective understood and mastered, the magnitude of the work became much smaller. Where when they were first learning, it was much large. The magnitude of a task can be another factor that dictates skill. A skilled artist will be the ones who managed to master something difficult to do. After which, their efforts are shared to and copied by everyone else. The people who learn from the masters still have the same trajectory, by a much smaller magnitude.(I don't know why I'm thinking in terms of vectors)

>It's skill as this kind of subconscious knack for feeling what's alive in your culture that makes good authors instinctively averse to cliche
That's ego. And it's not bad per se. The ego drives artists to make something that distinguishes their work above others. When the skills are already mastered, then the next best way to distinguish yourself is to deviate from trends. Do something "different".

>When you look at the neolithic shaman's mask, you don't think, 'This sucks, I could pay a guy £50 to make the same thing;' you think, 'The guy who made this saw the potential in the gnarled dead tree and the faces lit up around the campfire.'
I don't think that. That's gay. I think "That looks cool". Unless it looks bad, in which case, I think "that looks bad". But if I were to judge the art, I would do so by comparing his work to the work that surrounds him in his culture. Is his mask better or worse than theirs? What efforts did he make to achieve that look? What was the intent of the mask, and is it achieve that goal?

[Anonymous No.22645594]

>>22645336
>>22645409
not good enough. 90-105 iq aesthetic theorizing.

[Anonymous No.22645600]

>>22645473
80 iq posting here

[Anonymous No.22645605]

>>22645594
Is having average IQ supposed to be an insult?
What is your take? Do you have an opinion, or are you just here to shit talk?

>>22645600
Oh nvm, I downgraded to 80. That's kind of insulting. But again I ask, do you have an opinion?

[Anonymous No.22645637]

>>22645605
im knee deep in aesthetics but no i dont have anything to share other than aesthetic judgment of posts. does this change our undying friendship?

[Anonymous No.22645649]

You appreciate beauty when you see it. Art is beautiful. But when you try to explain why, you err a million ways and miss the mark.

[Anonymous No.22645658]

>>22645649
shut the fuck up you stupid fucking tranny

[Anonymous No.22645670]

>>22645658
Holy shit, after 10 years, I've finally been called gay. Actually, I've skipped gay to troon. If I were on /r9k/, I'd say I'm finally getting pussy.

My own.

[Anonymous No.22645675]

>>22643634
Trying to "define" art in a post-modern world where nothing means anything and deconstruction is king is a fruitless venture.
I agree with this guy >>22644853

[Anonymous No.22645685]

>>22645675
>Giving the deconstructionists credence
Disgusting.

[Anonymous No.22645698]

>>22645675
youre a dumb fucking tranny too. no one takes degenerates like you seriously when meaning is clearly able to be ascribed to the world

[Anonymous No.22645768]

>>22645698
you sound mad is something wrong?

[Anonymous No.22646907]

>>22643634
She played Penelope in that French TV show Odysseus from 2013 that I had to drop when it went full retard halfway through. It literally did everything opposite to the source material, but the most egregious part was
>Menelaus comes into Ithaca to turn it into his vassal state and he and Telemachus are antagonistic towards each other from the moment they meet
>he also beats up Helen all day (she ran away willingly with Paris and didn't think this would cause a war) and chains her
>for some reason he's Penelope's cousin now and Mycene is a black hole

[Anonymous No.22646920]

>>22646907
I member ARTE doing some tv show about greeks and indeed Odysseus. As usual it was full of gays and whores.

[Anonymous No.22646939]

>>22643675
ah ok
fuck autocorrect

[Anonymous No.22647121]

>>22643634
Allegedly Wagner, which I’m starting to read now

[Anonymous No.22647174]

>>22644853
Then stop speaking our language

[Anonymous No.22647461]

>>22645336
Thanks for continuing my argument anon. Indeed that is a good attempt at defining skill.

[Anonymous No.22648173]

>>22643634
https://anthonymludovici.com/na_pre.htm