[ 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: 7 KB, 425x291, situationist-cartoon.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2788471 No.2788471[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How can you separate a work of art from the artist and his/her role in the society in which it is created? How can you separate psychological/spiritual/intellectual/scientific conceptions of the world from the culture in which they were formulated?

Answer: You can't.

You only have time to contemplate "deeper" questions because you are privileged. Therefore, this discourse is not universal or totalizing, but simply a discourse of privilege.

>> No.2788482

what is your point?

>> No.2788481

b-b-but ne-ne-o marx-x-xism iss scar-ry

>> No.2788483

What's your point? I know you already derived an opinion from that fact. I know you are dying to tell us about it

>> No.2788494

Your universal narratives are not so universal. Talking about "deep" things is for the privileged. At its finest, art is simply beautiful propaganda.

>> No.2788503

Wow are there really Marxists on here? Huh. Keep fighting the ignorant privileged on here.

>> No.2788506
File: 167 KB, 500x372, dubois.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2788506

you dont say

>> No.2788509
File: 42 KB, 430x338, SaulBellowLaughing..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2788509

I hate when woman/blacks/the poor talk about privilege. Just admit that your making excuses for inferior art already and move on. Maybe you'll come up with something soon.

In the eternal words of Saul Bellow, "when the Zulus have a Tolstoy, then I will read them"

>> No.2788517

wait by the "privileged" who do you mean

>> No.2788519

>>2788517
she probably means you

>> No.2788538

why read literature at all then?

>> No.2788541

>>2788494
>At its finest, art is simply beautiful propaganda.

prop·a·gan·da [prop-uh-gan-duh] Show IPA
noun
1.information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2.the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3.the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

I think I see where you are aiming to. However, I don't see how ALL of art would fit the definition. The most poignant example might abstract, tonical painting. A kind of art that deliberately excludes ideas out of it's practice and concentrates on the pleasure derived of the inmediate sensory input. There is an idea behind the work of art (as there is behind every deliberate act), however there is no intention of spreading an idea, the intention is completely opposite in fact.

My example might have it's flaws so I am interested in your counter-argument.

>> No.2788556

>>2788483
I forgot to add. It is possible to have the intention of communicating an idea without having the intention to cause harm or benefit with it. Some people just like information, you know. At least I know I get excited when learning certain things, useless in a practical sense, and I get excited about sharing such knowledge. I know there are a lot more like me out there and better than me at it.

>> No.2788561
File: 435 KB, 800x549, 1264+press1..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2788561

>>2788541
Pleasure is not a totalized sensation. Claiming that an art is made for purely aesthetic pleasure is actually very narrow minded. Your aesthetic pleasure is likely shaped by Capitalism and everything it currently entails (the patriarchy, privilege).

>> No.2788564

so?

>> No.2788566
File: 156 KB, 1488x1038, 2012_2366.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2788566

>>2788561
>the patriarchy

stop it already.

>> No.2788571

so why do you still believe in the value of non-revolutionary art

>> No.2788585

>>2788566
ignorance dubs. the worst kind.

>> No.2788594

most interesting of the leftist trolls recently. but your statement assumes that we, your imagined privileged audience, should care. i dont think the revolution will be in my lifetime, and i enjoy the art i enjoy.

>> No.2788598

>>2788561
So? All motivation, all thought, and all values are shaped by society, including both communistic and capitalistic ones. You have to convince us not that our values are arbitrary, but that they are arbitrary AND that there is some reason that we shouldn't hold them. Which you can't.

>> No.2788600

>>2788598
because it oppresses people

>> No.2788607

>>2788600

Is that why capitalistic societies have been so much more totalitarian than socialistic ones?

>> No.2788608

>>2788600
Oppression is a buzzword. What is oppression to you?

>> No.2788618

>>2788494
What the fuck are you even talking about? You're just dumping buzz-words like 'narrative' and 'privilege' out along with bits and pieces of disconnected cultural criticism from like the 1980s.

>> No.2788619

>>2788607
>USSR
>workers owning means of production

pick one

>> No.2788624

>>2788561
Sorry, not narrow minded. I am not stating that pleasure is all you can derive of them, I am merely stating declared intention. There is a section of abstract art that declares its intention to be derived pleasure out of sensory input. If there is no intention of spreading an idea it is, by definition, not propaganda. My argument still stands.

>Your aesthetic pleasure is likely shaped by Capitalism and everything it currently entails (the patriarchy, privilege).
You are assuming that I like the kind of art I put forward as an example. It was merely an example of art that doesn't fit in the definition given by you.

>> No.2788628

>>2788608
oppression is physical/psychological/psychic violence

>>2788607
it isn't that capitalism is more totalitarian, it's that capitalism spawns normativity, spawning normative violence. Capitalism's oppression doesn't portray itself as a regime so much as an infiltration.

>> No.2788630

/lit/ really doesn't know the difference between "buzzwords" and "critical theory terminology" at all does it

>> No.2788633

>>2788628
I like normativity. Violence has its place when it leads to the betterment of society as a whole or the repression of dangerous impulses.

>> No.2788634
File: 13 KB, 414x359, 6_Giovanna_Battaglia_Favorite_artist_Marcel_Duchamp..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2788634

You're right. Anti-art is the only truth.

>> No.2788638

>>2788633
You like normativity because you are accepted under its mantra. Women/the poor/minorities are not so lucky. Systemic violence is never acceptable outside of revolution. And even that is questionable.

>> No.2788648

>>2788624
I'm not saying that everything deemed art is propaganda. Basically I'm saying everything that isn't propaganda, is bad art. I think it's wrong to have an entirely negative reaction to the term 'propaganda'. At one time it was not considered so distasteful.

>> No.2788654

>>2788638
I don't know what you think 'normativity' means. how is a communistic or an anarchistic society going to work if not by accepted and enforced norms?

>> No.2788658
File: 50 KB, 579x579, 14sp1yp..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2788658

This thread has been blockaded and is now a revolutionary anti-art thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUYJdFhMESI

>> No.2788664

>>2788638
>You like normativity because you are accepted under its mantra.
And why is it that you reject it?
>Women/the poor/minorities are not so lucky.
You're assuming that I'm a white, privileged male?

I never said that every normative value in western civilization is desirable. The ones that are not aren't desirable not because they are normative but because they are normative AND because they are detrimental to the welfare of people. This isn't ideological; it's pragmatic.
>Systemic violence is never acceptable outside of revolution.
Police?

>> No.2788669
File: 15 KB, 244x300, Foucault5..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2788669

>>2788654

>> No.2788674

>>2788669
What does John Malkovich have to do with this?

>> No.2788675
File: 101 KB, 345x500, afro..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2788675

>>2788664
because it inflicts trauma and violence on billions of human beings.

and fuck the police. no one should have a monopoly on force.

>> No.2788681
File: 264 KB, 1200x1600, baby troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2788681

>>2788600
>You have to convince us not that our values are arbitrary, but that they are arbitrary AND that there is some reason that we shouldn't hold them. Which you can't.
>because it oppresses people

I won't argue whether capitalist values in general are oppresive or not because it is irrelevant to my argument: The spread of oppresive values and ideologies is hardly an argument against art as a whole, given the diversity of contemporary art. You can certainly put forward the thought that some art school spreads oppresive, seggregating ideas, but again... that doesn't disqualify art as a whole.

About art just being for the privileged. You are probably excluding all forms of street art (public performances, grafitti, chalk, etc.). Not all that happens in such mediums can qualify as art (some of it falls perfectly in the category of propaganda) and it generally falls short on quality as copared to other mediums but the point stands again.

You should really start trolling harder now

>> No.2788686
File: 935 KB, 1113x782, hermann_nitsch_film_maria_conception_pas_un_autre.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2788686

>>2788658

>> No.2788703

>>2788681
you're really missing the point. im not arguing against art at all. im arguing for revolutionary "art", art that defies the system of power of the capitalist art world, and in going against everything normative art stands for, necessarily is termed anti-art.

>> No.2788717
File: 38 KB, 400x288, lucky..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2788717

>>2788681

>> No.2788728

the revolution should start with the wiki. shit is really pretty bad. although i suppose the "western canon" has always been whitewashed, and /lit/ is just an outgrowth of this system

>> No.2788772

>>2788648
Ok. That is a different point. Why is art that's not propaganda bad art? Sorry for my missconception you seemed to be using propaganda with bad connotations (I agree with you, propaganda isn't neccesssarily a negative term).

In advance, I would argue that propagandistic art at is fullest is normative, seggregational and oppresive, not merely as a coincidental fact but as a constitutive trait. Two examples:
1. Mexican muralist movement (while it served some good purposes) under Vasconcelos office fits perfectly on the propaganda definition. The government stated what was to be put and what was to be excluded of the murals. The resulting illustration of mexican history as portrayed in such murals obviously resulted on an idealistic, far from the truth portrait of mexican history. As a secondary effect, all the economic investments by the government were used for muralists (excluding artists in other mediums).
2.Russian art during a brief period of the oviet Union (around 56 probably) was canonically realist and severly crippled, stagnant. Doesn't that qualify as oppresion? It also was a kind of propagandistic art.

>> No.2788782

>>2788703
Are you stuck in the past? Anti-art is already normative... it has been assimilated by the stablishment since a long time ago. The institutions usually benefit from such art both monetarely and by the fact that it gives an illusion of freedom to dissent (therefore, preventing actual revolutionary actions)


And yes, ignore that post, I wrote it before reading your previous one

>> No.2788797

>>2788782
You are also implying that it is the obligation of good art to fulfill a revolutionary duty and you have no base for such an assertion. That makes it just another weak opinion. I am going to leave now... you are just throwing idiology as a monkey throws his feces at the zoo