[ 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: 52 KB, 776x540, happy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2442273 No.2442273 [Reply] [Original]

what is 'good' art?
the maximization of originality? emotional affect? demonstration of technical skill?

>> No.2442277

originality doesn't matter

b & c.

>> No.2442284

how can one maximize an abstract concept such as originality?

do you even know what maximize means?

>> No.2442285

>>2442277
Stop Posting Forever

>> No.2442293

>>2442284
i know, im just giving suggestions. the maximization of originality would be an infinite number generator. of emotional affect, it might be someone killing your entire family right in front of you. for technical skill, a maximized expression might be hyperrealism.
so it cant be about originality, emotional affect, or plain technical skill

>> No.2442296

woah, woah, woah OP
let's calm down.
People like all kindsa stuff. and those who like it the best can't say why, they just do.
Let's not create conditions for beauty

>> No.2442298

I see all of you arguing, but nobody is arriving at just b.

Stay plebeian.

>> No.2442301

good art provokes something in you that makes you value the real world, or look at something in the real world in a new way.

degenerate art makes you devalue the real world and value that fantasy world instead.

>> No.2442303

Good art is art that you enjoy.

>> No.2442306

Not the maximazation of originality, no. "Emotion" does not tell us enough. Technical skill is a part. It is very difficult to analyze good art into parts because it will have overwhelming unity of effect. It will have personal force as well as impersonal force, but these will be one. I can't say anything beyond that now, I'm tired.

>> No.2442312

>>2442298
stay smug and lazy
what a combo of inertia.

>> No.2442313

>>2442296
art =! that which is beautiful, i dont care about beauty. try to answer the question

>>2442301
so provocation of feeling + change in value. maybe

>>2442303
good art does not aim to pleasure

>> No.2442315

Certain things defy definition.

Did I just blow your little minds?

>> No.2442318

>>2442313
>good art does not aim to pleasure
>art =! that which is beautiful

So that means you know what good art isn't. So you should also be able to deduce what good art is. Why even ask the question, then?

(rhetorical; it's because you're pretentious. :3)

>> No.2442316

all art is garbage, it's just some smell less bad

>> No.2442334
File: 55 KB, 450x600, 249351_1439996055187_1691636740_673833_2273488_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2442334

>>2442318
dat always pretentious socratic method

>> No.2442357

Good art makes money.
Good art is entertaining.

>> No.2442361

>>2442357
Wrong, Moby Dick did neither of those.

>> No.2442364

we just like reading books this isn't a board for experts on art retard

>> No.2442368

>>2442361
It's made money now. Bitch. And it is entertaining if you don't want to be entertained.

>> No.2442439

Kant believed that beauty ('good art') could not 'standardised' or defined by concepts, but rather by the amount of pleasure it produced in the viewer. I agree somewhat.

>> No.2442473

>>2442357
No. If you reduce art down to use-value, you begin to remove its autonomy. This is also somewhat related to kitsch, in that artists who try to make beautiful and profitable things make Art that isn't worthwhile.

Good art should challenge your state of existence, and so should not:
1. Make you feel happy and affirm your state
2. Pander to your fetishes and be a way to rationalise your state
Art like that above is essentially an "opiate of the masses".

>> No.2442476

that pic :)

>> No.2442486

>>2442439
Absolutely my stance.
Art is so subjective - if it makes a connection with you, then good. If not, it probably did with other people. Its impossible to give defining concepts.