[ 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: 58 KB, 612x612, 194707-612x612-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3837239 No.3837239 [Reply] [Original]

Looking for books or any literature about the uselessness and pointlessness of art.

Not looking to start a debate, just books about the specific topic.

>> No.3837306

There has to be something on the anti art movement somewhere

>> No.3837310

like dadaism?

>> No.3837319

>>3837239
Plato's Republic, though how much at face value you're mean to take it is debatable.

>> No.3837466

You won't find much. Only plebs have that belief, and plebs don't get books published.

Good luck though.

>> No.3837470

Arthur Danto’s The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art

>> No.3837485

>>3837306
Anti-art is pretty much shit like Marcel Duchamp. But that isn't literature. So I dunno.

>> No.3837499

>>3837485

Duchamp wrote things

>> No.3837534

>>3837485
marcel duchamp wasn't anti-art

he was anti-conventionality

>> No.3837543

>>3837466
>plebs don't get books published
...

>> No.3837547

>>3837239
>uselessness
Nobody said it was useful (well, sometimes maybe for therapeutic purposes)
>pointlessness
It has a point: creating art is a way to sublimate instincts and contemplating it is aesthetically pleasant. We like art because we like "higher" sources of fun.

>> No.3837569

anything on pataphysics, dada, L.A.N.G.U.A.G.E., fluxus, or flarf... esp. flarf because of how recent it is

>> No.3837570

>>3837547
I view art as more of a way to make metaphysical observations through human expression, not fun.

Both ways have points though

>> No.3837573

>>3837534
duchamp was just awesome.

>> No.3837577
File: 338 KB, 1257x2119, Nude Descending a Staircase, No.2 - 1912.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3837577

>>3837573
I know

>> No.3837581

Something like this?
http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/pol/taylor.htm

I think in fact that art is stupid as a market. Also its a bussiness dominated by the jew. i personally believe in the degenerated art doctrine.
inb4 go back to int

>> No.3837584

u won't find many people fighting against art, but there are many movements, as someone as mentioned above, that glory in the uselessness of their creations.
this>
"anything on pataphysics, dada, L.A.N.G.U.A.G.E., fluxus, or flarf... esp. flarf because of how recent it is"

>> No.3837587

>>3837239

After my nap, I'll post something.

>> No.3837592

Are there any respectable anthologies of art? It's such a vast world that I don't even know where to begin.

>> No.3837600
File: 8 KB, 201x251, paysagefautif.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3837600

>>3837577
I wish I could even troll this good.

>> No.3837599

>>3837581
>http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/pol/taylor.htm
>.org/pol/taylor.htm
>/pol/

>>/pol/

>> No.3837603

>>3837570
>metaphysical observations
Well, I suppose with this you mean it can be used to make perceptible representations of imperceptible things. Anyway, we do because it's fun (or for money). A higher kind of fun if you prefer, like a lot of mathematicians or scientists chose their job because they find it fun.

>> No.3837612

>>3837581
There is a difference between art and the art market. The jews hardly control the first.

>> No.3837621

>>3837577
>implying that isnt some good ass cubo-futurist bullshit

>> No.3837627
File: 1.16 MB, 1327x1333, Beksinsi - 334.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3837627

>Hating art.
What a gigantic faggot you are, OP.

>> No.3837628

>>3837627
>That filename.
Thanks for nothing, josh.

*Beksinski

>> No.3837632

>>3837621
I'm saying it is good.

>> No.3837642

>>3837592
Art in Theory 1900-2000 will give you most all criticism on major movements of the century (Harrison&Wood, Blackwell) It's dense and you'll probably have to dip into it as you come across movements you like. There's earlier time frames covered by the same publishing house and I think the new edition covers into the new millennium. This is art theory however, which is not the same as art.

I'd recommend looking up the Oxford University Press anthologies (After Modern Art 1945-2000, Hopkins; Modern Art 1851-1929, Brettell- both of these will give you a pretty sound backing to modern art movements, enough you can find criticism in Art in Theory which would give you a stronger backing) along with their books on individual artists.
Taschen do individual artists very well also, along with publishing some of the best and weirdest art movements and porn.
If you want earlier art backing, Hall's Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art will give you a comprehension of older works.
Those will probably take you forever to get through, so I'd recommend finding OUP, Taschen and Thames&Hudson published books and seeing what you like the look of and start from there. Hope this helps.
(Note: Hall's and Art in Theory you should put off buying until you've some understanding of what you like, since both are expensive and dense to navigate even with some art awareness)

>> No.3837664

Philistinism for idiots: "Become what you are" - Nietzsche

>> No.3837671

>>3837642
Thanks a lot, anon. Art in Theory and After Modern Art are both on Soulseek, so I've got them in queue.

Do you know of any good books that deal with religious/medieval art?

>> No.3837674

Art is pretty useless when you think about it.

>> No.3837676

>>3837627
Is it just me, or did anyone else that picture was a boschian monster with a horse skull for a head?

Also art is the most amazing thing. It is my sole motivation in life. Fucking love art. Like the OP image too.

>> No.3837728

>>3837671
Hall's will be your best bet for that. It explains most of the symbols and subjects used in the Western Canon. If you'd like a history, Unearthing the Past: Archaeology and Aesthetics in the Making of Renaissance Culture (Barkan, Yale UP) is pretty comprehensive. However, you're probably going to want to look into certain movements, timeframes, and mediums more than others- and Barkan's is much more about the build to the Renaissance than just purely those movements which helped form the Renaissance.

Thames and Hudson have a very good book on Early Medieval Art dealing with the Caroligian, Romanesque and Ottonian movements, but I can't remember who it's by- those are all definitely in the title.

You should look into David Talbot Rice who has a fair amount published with Thames and Hudson as well, for Byzantine art and, he also has one called Birth of Western Painting which you could favour over Barkan depending on taste.

Really though, once you work out who you like from later time periods, or what styles you like from earlier time periods, it's pretty easy to find good commentary on them. The Google always helps too. :)

(Note: preModernism isn't my forte, so hopefully other anons can help you out too)

>> No.3837935

>>3837642
What on earth, man/woman. You say all this but you don't bother mentioning Gombrich's "The Story of Art," which is *the* anthology when it comes to the whole history of art?

And for anything post 1900, *nothing* equals the two giant volumes of "Art Since 1900" by Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alain Bois, and Benjamin Buchloh.

>> No.3837955

>>3837935
Anon, you are completely right. I have no clue how I left out Foster or Gombrich. Foster's even sitting next to my computer >.<
I should look into an MRI.

>> No.3837966 [DELETED] 

Conspiracy of Art by Jean Baurillard

>> No.3837980

>>3837470
this, the Partially examined life podcast did an episode on this as well

>> No.3838038
File: 567 KB, 1280x1920, the temple of the golden pavilion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3838038

>"The Temple of the Golden Pavilion"
>Yukio Mishima

Not exactly what you're after, but it definitely touches on the subject.

>> No.3838433

>>3837955
Mah nigga. Art history? Headed for PhD this fall, actually. Lurking around 4chan to pass the summer.

>> No.3838471

>>3837239
How has no one mentioned The Picture of Dorian Gray? Usually /lit/ will jump at any opportunity to mention a canonical novel they read in high school, and it is overtly about the uselessness of art (ie, "All art is quite useless" from the intro).

>> No.3838473

>>3838471
For OW it's useless, but it's also AbSoLuTeLy FaBulOuS!

>> No.3838520

>>3838433
No, art school drop out. I loved it, but recognised I was going mad around about the point I started reading Hebdige, and now just make pornographic jokes with moderate art value.
Good luck though

>> No.3838535

>>3837674
Holy shit you fucking retard.

>> No.3838583

>>3838535
I mean you can't actually DO anything with it.

It's immaterial.

Objectively speaking, our species could continue without the existence or need for art.

>> No.3838598

>>3838583
Louis Sullivan would have some disagreements

>> No.3838606

>>3838583
>Objectively speaking, our species could continue without the existence or need for art.
Our species could continue without pretty much everything. Objectively speaking.

>> No.3838620

lel, why does everyone always gang up on fandroid...he's doing his best you know.

>> No.3838624

>>3838620

STFU stan, you're the least friendly person on this board.

>> No.3839399

>>3838520
Aw, condolences. I'm pretty firmly set in the academic way of things and am fairly good at it professionally, so I'm hoping things go well 6-7 years hence.