Well?

File: 582 KB, 800x732, 1385963500914.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:07:36 2014 No.4735403 [DELETED]

Well?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:15:37 2014 No.4735415 fill your house full of Thomas Kinkades and ask again

>>	« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY Fri Apr 4 05:17:36 2014 No.4735418 "CULTURAL MARXISM", WHICH IS A MANIFESTATION OF DEGENERACY, WHICH IS SYMPTOMATIC OF NATURAL DECLINE.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:17:36 2014 No.4735419 >>4735403 photorealism became trivial to do, and pointless with the coming of photography. Also art became seperate from popular culture

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:19:36 2014 No.4735424 people still create photorealistic art. all that changes is whats 'in fashion'. All aesthetics is subjective anyway, if you look hard enough you will find plenty of modern artists you would like

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:20:36 2014 No.4735427 All that is solid melts into air - Timothy Leary

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:20:36 2014 No.4735428 >>4735418 A few hundred years more and we should see the inevitable Caesar.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:20:36 2014 No.4735429 >>4735403 hush, you tourist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:21:36 2014 No.4735430 File: 167 KB, 513x311, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735419 brainwashed drone detected.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:22:36 2014 No.4735434 >>4735428 >100 years Try 20 max.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:23:36 2014 No.4735435 File: 138 KB, 500x500, tumblr_ludu3iK6Ky1r5kjzqo1_500.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735424 >All aesthetics is subjective anyway Oh boy, you delicatessens need some new mantras.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:26:36 2014 No.4735440
File: 78 KB, 838x1162, 1326417660462.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735403 (OP)

>implying preraphaelites weren't complete shit
>implying picasso wasn't infinitely better

>>4735418

/pol/ pls

>>4735428

>implying it wasn't hitler
>implying we didn't kill his ass

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:27:36 2014 No.4735444 >>4735437 >implying implications

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:29:36 2014 No.4735448 >>4735418 >CULTURAL MARXISM I always see this term thrown around by the more right leaning crowd, but I never really understand what it's supposed to mean.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:29:36 2014 No.4735449
File: 173 KB, 679x631, 1344933883001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735437
>implying picasso wasn't infinitely better
When we got to picasso from the impressionists in Art History class I couldn't stomach it.

Even with all the gimmicky explanations as to why it's "so deep," I refused to accept it as art deserving of the same consideration as monet or Van Gogh.

>"It looks like a child painted it" I said
>Class laughs in agreement, some voice approval of my opinion
>Prof. sort of agrees as well, "but here's why we should appreciate it, the textbook and my own professor said that this painting...."

And that's when shit got shittier.

Here is a great power point presentation on the stupidity of art in the 20th century:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGX0_0VL06U&list=PL619ED61282CD714E&feature=c4-overview-vl

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:32:36 2014 No.4735451 >>4735448 >CULTURAL MARXISM It's a term coined by unitedstatians to equate any form of moral degeneracy with communism/socialism. It's a really fucked up country, with an impressive propaganda matrix.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:33:37 2014 No.4735454 >>4735435 Umm, which part of that picture shows them discussing aesthetics? Perhaps if his boss fired him for not liking some post-modern painting on his wall. Whose side would you take then?

>>	« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY Fri Apr 4 05:34:36 2014 No.4735457 >>4735451 YOU ARE IGNORANT. HERE IS A BRIEF OVERVIEW RE "CULTURAL MARXISM"; INFORM YOURSELF: http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:35:36 2014 No.4735460
File: 1.68 MB, 3840x1200, 1330830028548.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735449

how poverty stricken the youth of this age when their grandfathers were more radical than they!

>van gogh
>but not picasso

why, they are exactly the same? the impressionists set off the bomb when they finally moved away from "monkey see monkey do art", i.e. imitation of nature, the crudest and basest form of art. they began to make "impressions" of reality, thereby showing it as they really experienced it, not as it appeared empirically. van gogh ran with it and took it even further (when was a chair or a sunflower ever so truly sad?) picasso just took it further again, and so on, until warhol where it goes back to "reality".

don't be such a fucking pleb. l2beauty.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:39:36 2014 No.4735464 >>4735460 What would have happened if those faggots at the Salon just let Monet and co. in? Without giving them shit?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:41:36 2014 No.4735467 >>4735464 Interesting question, perhaps the paradigm of "art=whatever is against the established rule/etiquette" would have never reached such a zenith.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:42:36 2014 No.4735468
File: 2.35 MB, 3820x2964, Sanzio_01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735460
Personally I'd much rather have Raphael's "The School of Athens" on my bedroom wall than Picasso's Guernica. You can pretend all you want that because a peice of art is not photo-realistic it therefore has all these deep and profound symbols, but it will not convince me of it's inherent beauty compared with the appropriately named 'classics'.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:43:36 2014 No.4735471 >>4735448 Basically; "You don't want to be called 'Negro'? You must be a communist undermining Western society"

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:44:36 2014 No.4735473 >>4735468 >gurnica >not a classic

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:44:36 2014 No.4735474 >>4735471 >supporting the endless creation of replacement euphemisms You are the cancer killing the world.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:45:36 2014 No.4735475 I want /pol/ to leave If you can't appreciate Kooning I think you probably need to finish high school

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:45:36 2014 No.4735476 >>4735468 also, school of athens is FULL of "deep and profound symbols" and is highly allegorical. you can't appreciate its beauty without profound levels of context and historical information, just like any modern piece.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:46:37 2014 No.4735478 >>4735475 lol no draw the line at that shit and Hirst.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:46:37 2014 No.4735479 >>4735475 >you're not well-educated enough, like me, to see shit and call it art

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:47:37 2014 No.4735480 >>4735475 >Not liking art that sucks >YOU'RE NOW AFFILIATED WITH NAZISM Wow really?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:48:37 2014 No.4735483
File: 19 KB, 640x400, 1382054175815.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

There is an aesthetic underground burgeoning that will crash into the art scene like an Ancient Greek Trireme and sink the stupidity that has been dominating the seas to the bottom of the depths.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:49:37 2014 No.4735488 In a world like this, any art that is beautiful lies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:50:36 2014 No.4735491 >>4735475 Elaine Kooning was better.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:50:37 2014 No.4735489 File: 406 KB, 1170x666, 1396586482372.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735488 shut up.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:51:36 2014 No.4735492

>>4735480
No, I'm saying you're affiliated with edgy teenagers
Yes, I realise the ironing of saying that on 4chan[/spolier]

>>4735479
Well essentially yes, you haven't trained your mind to properly analysis and appreciate different aesthetic tastes and anti-aesthetics.

>>4735478
Hirst is great but I fail to see how the two are related.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:53:36 2014 No.4735494 >>4735480 >People using the term "cultural Marxism" seriously >Not Nazi's Sorry, but that's a pretty big red flag. (heh red flag)

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:54:36 2014 No.4735495 >>4735428 Ceasar is already here. But he's still a child.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:54:36 2014 No.4735496 >>4735494 Yea, but I never used the term "Cultural Marxism", that was somebody else. You're assumptive personality leads me to believe you have mental problems.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:55:36 2014 No.4735497

>>4735476
No shit its full of symbols. Its the School of Athens for fucks sake. You look silly for needing to mention that. But it has aesthetic beauty, that even a caveman could appreciate. Whereas gurnica is something people can only 'appreciate' if they create all these ideas about what they think it means. There is nothing wrong with that, but to me, that's not aesthetic beauty as I would like to have it in my home. It's almost an artist so lazy he forces his audience to fill in most of the gaps. I understand the notion, but I am not going to be fooled as to thinking it anyway superior to stuff I instinctively like

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:55:36 2014 No.4735498 >>4735489 The dude jacking off into his mouth actually looks better than that unfinished piece of shit sculpture that tripfag did. I'm not surprised he's mad that others are better than him.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:55:36 2014 No.4735499
File: 275 KB, 667x599, 1341366002107.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>comparing the artwork of a century that contained the optimistic rise of multiple empires/powerful nations, the Pax Britannica, advances in technology, and wide increases in prosperity
>to the artwork of one of the bloodiest centuries known in history that contained the downfall of these empires and both world wars
>"WOW THIS ONE BEFORE IS SO NICE AND COMPOSED, AND THIS ONE AFTERWARDS IS SO CHAOTIC AND UPSET WHAT HAPPENED?"

Why is anyone even bothering to respond seriously?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:57:37 2014 No.4735502
File: 1.11 MB, 849x1601, 1382587549576.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Rooms in museums are exhibiting this stupidity.

For example, at my university there is a "art gallery" where a tv is on a loop of a nail hitting a hammer on a head with a "number 9"esque mantra repeating over and over.

I try not to feel anger, but it's hard to accept that that shit gets into galleries, meanwhile there is an artist hundreds of times more talented going unappreciated.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:57:37 2014 No.4735504 >>4735492 for me hirst and koons are two peas in a flashy pod. all surface, spectacle for the plebs, boring, exorbitantly priced rubbish.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:57:37 2014 No.4735505 >>4735499 because the beauty of art is that it can transcend it s own time? And it's not necessarily always a reflection of the artists life and experience? Pls babby, you have lots to learn

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 05:58:37 2014 No.4735506 >>4735496 I think everyone in this thread is assuming stuff left and right. This thread is shit.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:00:36 2014 No.4735509

>>4735424
The one on the left is not "photorealistic". I wish people would stop calling any older art "photorealistic". It really isn't, and it's obvious. There's a lot of differences between that painting and a photograph.

>>4735449
>I refused to accept it as art deserving of the same consideration as monet or Van Gogh.
The personal opinions of you and myself aside, the same complaints you're making against Picasso are the same ones made against Monet and Van Gogh.

>"it's formless"
>no "intellectual rigor" or order
>this isn't even a painting of a landscape, just an impression of one!
>a child could paint this

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:00:36 2014 No.4735510 >>4735403 I know OP is b8ing, but I do miss beauty in art. At least Turrell still has it

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:01:36 2014 No.4735512
File: 479 KB, 1978x1994, udnie-young-american-girl-1913.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735497

>even a caveman could appreciate

no. apparently jungle tribes couldn't even recognise people in images of people on paper when they first saw them. perception and the appreciation of beauty are highly conditioned, historical and contextual.

both pices require exactly the same processes. one is not "natural and immediate", the other is not "unnatural or abstract".

your aesthetic instincts are historically, culturally and economically conditioned.

also, who would want gurnica in their house, its depressing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:01:36 2014 No.4735513 >>4735506 All human opinion regarding art is 'assuming'. I'm sorry if this does not meet your empirical criteria, but there is still value and enjoyment in debate, even if there are no concrete answers

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:02:36 2014 No.4735514 File: 1.28 MB, 1137x795, 1362293450022.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] GRAT IMPROVMANT!

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:02:36 2014 No.4735515

>>4735496
>You're assumptive personality leads me to believe you have mental problems.
lol

>>4735468
You say Jackson Pollock, I say Michelangelo
You say Damien Hirst, I say Titian
You say Picasso I say Raphael
You say new school, I say old school
You say Andy Warhol, I punch you in the face!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:03:37 2014 No.4735517 >>4735492 >having to train your mind to "appreciate" aesthetics

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:03:37 2014 No.4735518

>>4735468
I like that you at once contradicted yourself while failing to realize how successful each work is.

Those soft tones, impeccable poses, etc. Does Raphael capture the epicurean atmosphere of the subjects? Do you think soft tones and impeccable poses would covey the horrors of war? Cuz Picasso, rightly, didn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:03:37 2014 No.4735519 >>4735504 You clearly don't understand Hirst then.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:03:37 2014 No.4735520 File: 189 KB, 714x714, 1334194353817.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Evolution! Not extinction!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:04:37 2014 No.4735521 >>4735514 you're right bro, we need more muscular nude men but yes, art has gotten unspeakably ugly

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:05:36 2014 No.4735522
File: 69 KB, 540x382, 39.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735502

Rooms in museums are exhibiting this dummheit.

For example, at meine universitat there is a "kunst gallery" where a there is a urinal signed '"R. Mutt". Mein Gott!

I try not to feel anger, but it's hard to accept that that sheissa gets into galleries, meanwhile there is an artist hundreds of times more talented in the Reich going unappreciated.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:05:36 2014 No.4735523 File: 89 KB, 1173x473, Modern art idiot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/quiz-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-modern-art-and-art

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:05:36 2014 No.4735524 >>4735494 >People using the term "cultural Marxism" seriously Well it is a pretty serious thing. A pretty serious fascist thing whose ultimate goal is mind control.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:06:37 2014 No.4735526 File: 43 KB, 640x400, 1382056580250.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:06:37 2014 No.4735527 File: 10 KB, 340x462, Fuente_obra_Marcel_Duchamp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735522 pic related, degenerate rubbish.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:07:37 2014 No.4735529

>>4735502
The receipt is titled 'Monochrome Till Receipt (White)'. All the items purchased (salt, milk, rice, cotton wool) are white or transparent and have predominantly white labels. There's more you can tease out of it, of course, but it's a pretty simple idea. The shelves have templates used for drawing circles in technical drawing on them, into which appropriately sized household objects which are circular have been placed. These sorts of things give rise to a whole range of thoughts, from more complex ones to very simple ones ('isn't it interesting how many diverse things we use every day have the same shape?'). Other things are obviously being presented out of context or partially; the football, for example has a projector pointed at it, so is probably being used as a screen. The only thing here that requires some insider knowledge is the card-stand, which is almost certainly referencing Duchamp's bottle stand.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:07:37 2014 No.4735530 >>4735517 >having to train your mind to read books do you even know what fucking board you're on?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:07:37 2014 No.4735531

>>4735512
Most modern art hung in homes is either to convince others that your deep and can see all these things into it that other people can't. Or, you have somehow convinced yourself that it means all these profound things, and you get to smugly smile to yourself every-time you look at it because of how intellectual you are. Call me 'uncultured' for preferring visceral aesthetic beauty and realism, but I need pretend nothing when looking at it, and can merely 'enjoy the garden, without having to believe there are fairies a the bottom of it as well.'

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:08:37 2014 No.4735533 >>4735523 I don't get it. Modern art IS a modern art movement, like neo-classical or romantic. Modern is a genre, contemporary is a time-period. Why are you calling him an idiot for basically quoting a dictionary?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:08:37 2014 No.4735535 File: 176 KB, 538x737, MechanicalHead-Hausmann.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735527 und was ist das!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:08:37 2014 No.4735536 >>4735527 >using duchamp as an example of 'degenerate' and uncreative art it's like people on the internet actually don't know what they're talking about

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:09:37 2014 No.4735539 >>4735512 >also, who would want gurnica in their house, its depressing. Good art is depressing. Great art is upbeat. Beethoven. Dammit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:10:37 2014 No.4735540 >>4735533 >Modern art IS a modern art movement welp, just remove that second modern there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:10:39 2014 No.4735541 File: 193 KB, 776x561, 1396606254591.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735536 >das ist der witz >>4735531 do enjoy ceramic garden gnomes in said garden? keep your kitschy pleb taste in a box and leave the higher beauty to us ty.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:11:39 2014 No.4735542 File: 310 KB, 1268x861, 1268231358299.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735531 Reminds me of pic related

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:12:39 2014 No.4735544 >>4735541 Seems like you're pretty dedicated to bringing nazism into this thread. Trying to get innocent OP banned eh?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:12:45 2014 No.4735545

>>4735531
maybe people just, you know, have different tastes than you.

busy realist paintings can distort the feeling of a room, make it feel too crowded, not fit in appropriately with the colour scheme or draw attention away from other more important features.

art's all about context yo

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:14:38 2014 No.4735548

>>4735533
*sigh* you just don't get it, you're too brainwashed to step back from the circus that's been constructed and take in the fundamentals of the whole structure that you've bought into.

You've been conned, and you've been conditioned to con others--and you don't even realize it. You're a virus for fax-dialectics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:14:38 2014 No.4735549 >>4735545 >art's all about context yo Indeed. Unfortunately people seem to most concerned if it will match the drapes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:14:45 2014 No.4735547 >>4735530 If you need specialized training to appreciate something, it's shit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:15:38 2014 No.4735550 File: 471 KB, 474x379, 1334127652699.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >people listing Romantic, Impressionistic, anti-Tradition degenerate art as "Classical", "Traditional", or otherwise non-degenerate

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:15:38 2014 No.4735551 >>4735548 faux*-dialectics

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:17:39 2014 No.4735554
File: 511 KB, 889x589, dada-wall.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735544

mein gott must i spell it out? the nazis absolutely hated any art that wasn't completely realist or which didn't advocate "healthy" messages. they banned this exhibition of dada because it was "degenerate" (which ironically made it extremely popular, millions saw it).

you hear people say the same shit today, they need a history lesson and an art lesson.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:17:39 2014 No.4735555 >>4735547 >high school >specialised training I'm surprised you can even fucking type, let alone post on a literature board.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:17:39 2014 No.4735556

>>4735547
>If you need specialized training to appreciate something, it's shit.

Do you appreciate the symbol box that allowed you to share that all over the world?
Do you think a computer scientist might have more to say on the subject?

PS: have any old crappy LP albums laying around you'd like to give away?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:17:39 2014 No.4735557 this thread is so full of plebs it hurts my brain i want pol to leave

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:18:39 2014 No.4735558 >>4735554 So wait...anything the nazi's liked is bad? Well then.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:19:39 2014 No.4735561 >>4735542 All that furniture is ugly as shit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:19:39 2014 No.4735565 File: 1.40 MB, 3000x3000, 1337649612972.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735557 You are the epitome of the kind of ignorance Plato talks about in his cave allegory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6LUptADIww

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:21:39 2014 No.4735569

>>4735555
What high school other than specialized art schools teach you to appreciate filth like Kooning?

>>4735556
Are you comparing "appreciation" for technology with "appreciation" for art?
Is this really what you're doing right now?
Can you get the fuck away from me please?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:21:39 2014 No.4735571

>>4735558

pretty much. show me some good nazi art. oh wait, there isn't any. maybe riefenstahl for film, but she was no fritz lang.

but the REASONING is what is abhorrent. to accuse something of being "degenerate" and hence bad/ugly/wrong is absolutely totalitarian and has no place in this time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:22:39 2014 No.4735576 >>4735565 no he isn't

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:22:41 2014 No.4735577 File: 307 KB, 200x100, 1394662599270.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735571

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:23:41 2014 No.4735582 >>4735571 Governments are not creators of art anon.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:24:41 2014 No.4735584
File: 6 KB, 194x259, ttimeingermany.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735558
Can you name any of the artists that they hailed as the based?
No, you can't because everyone outside of der Fuhrer's Kaffeeklatsch knew it was strictly pleb tier as history, and you own memory, has proved.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:26:41 2014 No.4735589

>>4735547
>training to appreciate something
I'll remember to throw out School of Athens and the rest of my Raphael, Titian, and any older paintings with a reliance on symbols (rip Raphael, rip any religious art, which was most of it), or even mathematical harmony, like the dreaded rule of thirds, composition beyond medieval flat characters, and all of that stuff then, thanks. Next time I pick something up I'll just pick up one of those Modern art paintings that's just a $300 set of nicely colored patterns. I don't need any training to like that. In fact, those are a lot easier to appreciate because there's less going on in them, so thanks bro.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:26:42 2014 No.4735590 >>4735577 cool >>4735582 *nazi approved >>4735584 what?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:27:42 2014 No.4735594 expressionists, deconstructionists, abstract artists, surrealists, anti-realists and anyone trying to undo the orthoxy of realism and utilitarianism

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:28:42 2014 No.4735597 File: 30 KB, 500x375, timetostopposting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735584

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:31:39 2014 No.4735601

>>4735569
>Are you comparing "appreciation" for technology with "appreciation" for art?

Indeed I am, anon. Wanna know why?

>specialized training to appreciate something
>appreciate something
>something

Your frikken words. Regardless, the analogy (that's what I did there, made an analogy) is apt. No matter whether something requires subjective or technical training the more you are familiar with an area of study the more likely you will be able to appreciate its strengths and weakness, we might call them nuances. Like how mathematicians might call a proof 'elegant'. To you it's a mass of scribbly lines.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:31:39 2014 No.4735602

>>4735569
>What high school other than specialized art schools teach you to appreciate filth like Kooning?
This isn't necessarily about Kooning you buffoon, can I ask what sort of literature you read (because you are on a literature board)? I hope it's nothing more than Harry Potter and Alex Rider books, else I fear you may be missing a lot.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:32:39 2014 No.4735604

>>4735589
You left out the "specialized" part of the training.
The majority of the population then was generally very aware of the symbolism.

And rules related to composition are simply manifestations of what humans inherently like.

>>4735590
>*nazi approved

Didn't the nazis seek out all fine art from conquered lands for themselves? To showcase in Berlin?
Seems like the ultimate seal of approval.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:33:39 2014 No.4735605 >>4735601 We're talking about art anon. See the OP. It's pretty clear. If you think appreciating technology and appreciating art are in any way analogous you're a retard, plain and simple.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:35:39 2014 No.4735608 >>4735602 >This isn't necessarily about Kooning you buffoon Yes it is. This post started this discussion: >>4735475 Please remove yourself from the discussion if you're going to get involved without knowing what we're talking about in the first place.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:35:39 2014 No.4735609

>And rules related to composition are simply manifestations of what humans inherently like.
So art can only be 'good' if it is created according to a set of abstract 'rules' set forth by certain individuals and organisations during a specific time period?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:35:39 2014 No.4735610
File: 1.88 MB, 2008x2800, 1396607741567.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This thread depresses me because there are such idiots on earth that still defend Picasso/modernist artists as being "great".

Fuck--you fools are the reason the developed world has become so morally and artistically bankrupt.

Mindless drones to whom everything that is not hedonistic, is secondary.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:36:39 2014 No.4735611 File: 77 KB, 600x525, Jeff_Koons_Gagosian_5-600x525.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735519 oh i was thinking of KOONS not Kooning my bad. pic related

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:37:39 2014 No.4735614 >>4735610 Modern art fits perfectly within the precepts of cultural marxism. Plenty of people are latent cultural marxists.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:38:39 2014 No.4735616

>>4735604
>The majority of the population then was generally very aware of the symbolism.
No, not really. Half the people you take off the street wouldn't have understood, and even today won't understand, who any of the philosophers in School of Athens are except Plato and Aristotle, much less the significance of their posing and positioning. Art was always something intended for educated people with "specialized training", people weren't displaying 30x30 feet oil paintings on the street, you dummy. It's only recently that "Art for the average/ordinary/everyman" has come about. Most artwork was directly commissioned and given to aristocrats and nobility, who were experienced and "trained" in appreciating complicated artwork and knew what was going on and would be able to appreciate it.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:38:39 2014 No.4735618
File: 592 KB, 1666x2000, 1359897268826.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735610

>posts renaissance
>complains about hedonism

top lel

also /pol/ plebs gtfo

>>4735614

nostalgia for dead art is perfectly within the precepts of fascism. plenty of people are latent fascists.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:39:39 2014 No.4735621 >>4735618 >nostalgia for dead art is perfectly within the precepts of fascism How is that? Also, nothing is more fascist than marxism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:40:39 2014 No.4735623 >>4735616 You don't have to know who each of the philosophers in that painting is to appreciate the beauty of that painting. You're harming your own argument more and more.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:40:39 2014 No.4735624

>>4735608
How are you fucking using a fucking computer you drooling sack of shit? Kooning was used as an example of 'modern' and 'degenerate' art in opposition to what OP thought was 'pure' and 'good' art. It's not about a fucking specific examples you braindead cunt, like the OP I was using Kooning as a metaphor for the wider movements within modernist and post-modernist art.

Now tell me what the fuck do you read, if you read at all?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:40:39 2014 No.4735625 >>4735621 pretty sure fascism is more fascist than marxism. it harks back to the "good old days" which need to be restored by the glorious leader who will assuage the tide of modern degeneracy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:42:39 2014 No.4735628 >>4735614 Could you please explain what 'cultural Marxism' means exactly without resorting to spamming this thread with your sperglord 'info'graphics? >>4735611 Yeah I only noticed that afterwards, I don't like Koons either.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:43:39 2014 No.4735629 >>4735623 I also don't need understand anything about academic art to appreciate the colors in a $300 canvas in a Modern Art museum. You're not even making a point here.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:43:39 2014 No.4735631

>>4735605
I ride a Moto Guzzi. From an aesthetic point of view (I have a minor in art history) it is beautiful. From a technical point of view (I'm a motorcycle mechanic) it is beautiful.

Bonus; Similar in aesthetically pleasing design to, but unlike a Ferrari, a motorcycle doesn't cover up its mechanical components in bodywork; this in itself lends it to appreciation more fully and honestly via its raw mechanical beauty.

Prove me wrong.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:44:39 2014 No.4735632

>>4735624
Listen you angry little man, let's do a little play-by-play here because you obviously cannot keep up with this simple discussion.

This post: >>4735475
says:
-"If you can't appreciate Kooning I think you probably need to finish high school"

In the ensuing discussion I posit that no high school outside of specialized art schools teach appreciation for the likes of Kooning.

This discussion was about Kooning and similar shit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:47:39 2014 No.4735640 File: 484 KB, 2040x2749, 1385809148843.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The stupidity in this thread has given me a headache, must cleanse brain with good art.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:47:39 2014 No.4735641 >>4735616 This is wrong. The paintings in the Vatican (e.g.) were designed to be able to understood by literal illiterates; hence the genre of didactic religious painting- which you'll be good enough to research as not such a "recent' invention.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:48:39 2014 No.4735642

>>4735628
>Could you please explain what 'cultural Marxism' means

It's right there on wikipedia, the opinion that "traditional values" aren't actually traditional but rather imposed ideology.

>>4735629
>I also don't need understand anything about academic art to appreciate the colors in a $300 canvas in a Modern Art museum.

Modern art can be pretty, but that Kooning piece of shit in the OP obviously isn't.

>>4735631
I don't have to prove you wrong because you're conflating functional aesthetics with art.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:49:40 2014 No.4735644 File: 147 KB, 482x375, universum_aristotle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:49:40 2014 No.4735645 >>4735624 >Now tell me what the fuck do you read, if you read at all? Dat nerd rage.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:49:40 2014 No.4735647 File: 39 KB, 670x514, MagrittePipe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735640 k

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:50:40 2014 No.4735649 File: 595 KB, 1437x1811, 1384073337914.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:51:39 2014 No.4735650 File: 829 KB, 2755x2000, 1390895360964.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:51:39 2014 No.4735652

>>4735625
>it harks back to the "good old days" which need to be restored by the glorious leader who will assuage the tide of modern degeneracy.

Since when is nostalgia a defining characteristic of fascism?

Since when is wanting old styles back more fascist than forcing innovation?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:52:39 2014 No.4735655 File: 2.87 MB, 3137x1600, 1349887422283 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:52:40 2014 No.4735656

>>4735632
>This discussion was about Kooning and similar shit.
Well at least you managed to cram that useful piece of information into your mushy excuse for a brain.

Kooning is a well known modernist, he's taught in many art classes in various non-specialised schools (like the one I went to). However, that is totally beside the point; Beckett, Shakespeare, Ondaatje, Blade Runner and Titian could all substitute for Kooning in my argument. If you could actually properly read and not just be a belligerent arsehole you'd see that I'm encouraging you to finish high school so you can appreciate many different artists and works of art with a certain degree of contextual, philosophical and psychological analysis. Of course it's your choice if you want to take this advice or just keep posting antisemitic conspiracy theories on the internet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:52:40 2014 No.4735657 >>4735642 >functional aesthetics functional aesthetics??? Like a Macintosh?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:53:40 2014 No.4735658 >>4735657 >implying

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:53:40 2014 No.4735659 File: 772 KB, 3000x2119, 1383773421331.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:54:40 2014 No.4735661 >>4735659 Holy shit.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:55:40 2014 No.4735664

>>4735642
>It's right there on wikipedia
Well then a lot of modern art should not be categorised as 'cultural Marxist' because a huge fucking chunk of it was made before the 60s and before WWII.

>the opinion that "traditional values" aren't actually traditional but rather imposed ideology.
But that's true.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:55:40 2014 No.4735665 >>4735659 /thread.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:56:40 2014 No.4735667 >>4735658 Fine: please define "functional aesthetics".

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:57:40 2014 No.4735668 >>4735640 >I see an old woman WOAH ART

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:57:40 2014 No.4735669

>>4735656
>Well at least you managed to cram that useful piece of information into your mushy excuse for a brain.

So you agree that the discussion was about Kooning, but when I develop my argument around Kooning I'm a buffoon?

Nice logic you have there.

>Beckett, Shakespeare, Ondaatje, Blade Runner and Titian could all substitute for Kooning in my argument

So your argument is "Kooning isn't ugly because Titian isn't ugly"?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:58:40 2014 No.4735670 File: 165 KB, 785x1109, 1396609113518.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735652 wow really? do you now know what the Volksgemeinschaft was? how they appropriated peasant imagery for propaganda? or what Triumph of the Will looked like?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:58:43 2014 No.4735671 >>4735657 If you like the looks of Macintosh, absolutely.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 06:59:43 2014 No.4735673
File: 111 KB, 653x1200, saturn-devouring-his-son.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735642
>Modern art can be pretty, but that Kooning piece of shit in the OP obviously isn't.
Are we talking about modern art in general (which I thought was the case and was mentioned by others multiple times), Kooning in specific, or just visually unpleasant artwork in general?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:00:39 2014 No.4735677

>>4735669
>So your argument is "Kooning isn't ugly because Titian isn't ugly"?
I never said art had to be beautiful, that's a very outdated concept.

Should rape scenes not be allowed to be portrayed in art because they're 'ugly'?

>>4735669
>So you agree that the discussion was about Kooning, but when I develop my argument around Kooning I'm a buffoon?
You weren't understanding my argument and you still don't.

I stand by my statement that you are a buffoon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:00:43 2014 No.4735675 >>4735659 You realize that for its time this was a modern painting. You realize for you the development of art ends at the Romantic period.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:00:43 2014 No.4735676 >>4735460 amen

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:01:39 2014 No.4735678 >>4735671 And those looks are functional?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:01:39 2014 No.4735679

>>4735664
>Well then a lot of modern art should not be categorised as 'cultural Marxist' because a huge fucking chunk of it was made before the 60s and before WWII.

Cultural Marxism predates WWII.

>But that's true.

Yeah, the gender roles of men and women aren't at all related to the hundreds of millennia during which the physical strength of men set them apart from women, and during which the childbearing properties of women set them apart from men.
Someone invented that recently.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:04:39 2014 No.4735681

>>4735677
>I never said art had to be beautiful, that's a very outdated concept.

Only if you overthink it.

>Should rape scenes not be allowed to be portrayed in art because they're 'ugly'?

Doing evil things is only "ugly" in a figurative sense. Lots of beautiful paintings and sculptures depict evil things like murder.

>You weren't understanding my argument and you still don't.

The discussion was about Kooning, but for some reason I'm a buffoon if I use him in my arguments.

You're out of your depth.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:06:39 2014 No.4735682

>>4735679
>Cultural Marxism predates WWII.
That's not what the Wikipedia article suggested, stop shifting the fucking goalposts.

>Yeah, the gender roles of men and women aren't at all related to the hundreds of millennia during which the physical strength of men set them apart from women, and during which the childbearing properties of women set them apart from men.
There's certainly a biological basis for gender 'differences' but that's no reason for culture to exaggerate them. No one man is necessarily going to be better at maths than any one woman and no one woman is necessarily going to be any better than any one man at child-rearing.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:06:39 2014 No.4735683

>>4735678
If those looks aren't functional they're purely for aesthetics.

>>4735673
Visually unpleasant modern art being regarded as good.

There is always going to be ugly art, but it takes the modern delusions around art to deny the ugliness of Kooning.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:10:39 2014 No.4735687

>>4735682
>That's not what the Wikipedia article suggested, stop shifting the fucking goalposts.

Wikipedia can suggest all it wants, cultural marxism still began shortly after WWI.

And I didn't say cultural marxism spawned modern art, I said it fits perfectly within its precepts.

Logic, get some.

>There's certainly a biological basis for gender 'differences' but that's no reason for culture to exaggerate them.

Oh, so now you're going from "gender roles are not traditional culture but imposed ideology" to "gender roles are traditional but exaggerated"?

Please tell me how they are exaggerated, it's a little vague.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:11:39 2014 No.4735689

>>4735683
>but it takes the modern delusions around art to deny the ugliness of Kooning
Nobody denies his art is ugly. That's the point, dummy.

>"Aggressive brushwork and strategically placed high-key colors in these paintings merged with images of toothy snarls, overripe, pendulous breasts, enlarged eyes and blasted extremities to reveal a woman seemingly congruent with some of modern man's most widely held sexual fears. "
Even googling "Kooning beauty" brings up pages of people just talking about the deliberate and aggressive "ugliness" in his artwork. Why would you claim people are denying it? It's intended be visually unpleasant.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:11:39 2014 No.4735690

>>4735681
>Only if you overthink it.
That doesn't mean anything, please reconsider what you just said.

>Doing evil things is only "ugly" in a figurative sense.
Haha, what?! So artistic flourishes by directors such as jerky camera shots, ominous music, screams and whimpers and close-up shots of contorted faces that intentionally 'uglify' the scene are somehow alright yet painting a woman (using Kooning, because he appears to be the only example you're capable of remotely understanding) in an intentionally ugly way to express your hatred is somehow 'not art'?

>The discussion was about Kooning
The discussion was about 'modern art', the nebulous concept that plebs use to delegitimise things they don't like or understand.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:13:39 2014 No.4735694 >>4735689 >Nobody denies his art is ugly. That's the point, dummy. Then what is its merit as art? You need indoctrination simply to keep from disregarding it forever after a single glance.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:14:39 2014 No.4735696 >>4735659 my gosh

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:15:39 2014 No.4735699
File: 285 KB, 668x511, overhead.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735681
>I never said art had to be beautiful, that's a very outdated concept.

Only if you overthink it.

-Here is a rather beautiful, you'll have to agree, painting of a pipe. But note- below the pipe are words that say that it isn't a pipe.

Don't over think this. It IS a beautiful painting after all. A painting of a pipe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:17:40 2014 No.4735705 >>4735699 It's painfully obvious that you're an untalented troll. The other person you're "arguing" is either your samefag double, or an incredibly stupid dupe. Also:>>4735483 I will not reply to anything else you say.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:17:40 2014 No.4735706

>>4735687
I said there are average gender differences and that women and men may or may not conform to 'traditional' gender roles if they so choose. However this should not be imposed (i.e. exaggerated) on those who do not necessarily conform to these 'traditional' roles.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:18:40 2014 No.4735708

>>4735690
>That doesn't mean anything, please reconsider what you just said.

It means art is supposed to be beautiful.
Only if you overthink it can ugly shit become art.

>Haha, what?!

You can film and depict rape in exceedingly beautiful ways.

Scribbling a woman like a child does, only uglier, is not beautiful unless you convince yourself it is against all natural inclinations you have.

>The discussion was about 'modern art'

The discussion was about ugly modern art considered as good. With Kooning as the example in this specific discussion.

Me building my argument around Kooning as a consequence does not make me a buffoon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:19:43 2014 No.4735710 >>4735699 Are you implying that work of art isn't beautiful?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:20:42 2014 No.4735714

>>4735706
>I said there are average gender differences and that women and men may or may not conform to 'traditional' gender roles if they so choose.

This has always been the case. As long as humans have existed there have been overbearing women and submissive men.

No need to have a think tank influence our leaders into making this mandatory.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:20:43 2014 No.4735712
File: 36 KB, 500x425, functional aesthetics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735683
>If those looks aren't functional they're purely for aesthetics.

wtf?

I ask you to define "functional aesthetics".
>If those looks aren't functional [aka "functional aesthetics"]

they're...

>purely for aesthetics

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:22:42 2014 No.4735717 >>4735710 >Are you implying that work of art isn't beautiful? >-Here is a rather beautiful, you'll have to agree, painting of a pipe. I am not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:23:42 2014 No.4735718 >>4735712 >I ask you to define "functional aesthetics". No you didn't, you asked whether the looks on a Macintosh were functional. Why do you need me to define functional aesthetics?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:24:42 2014 No.4735719 >>4735717 >I am not. Then why are you seemingly arguing against me, when you appear to be agreeing with me?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:30:42 2014 No.4735727

>>4735718
>Why do you need me to define functional aesthetics?

Because I'm dying to know of what they are.

~~~
I wonder; two flat lines parallel to each other aren't very aesthetically pleasing. Hmm, maybe if we tweak them a bit into a teardrop shape they'd be more aesthetically pleasing; indeed it is.
HOLY CRAP.
This shape is not only the shape of rain drops but also of airplane wings and fish bodies!
Thems some functional aesthetics right there!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:30:42 2014 No.4735728 >>4735659 Fucking Aivazovsky

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:32:42 2014 No.4735731 >>4735727 >Because I'm dying to know of what they are. For example: flowing lines are conducive to aerodynamics, and are also pleasing to the eye. Now stop playing the fool.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:33:42 2014 No.4735732 >>4735719 Anon averred that art indeed has to beautiful to be considered art. I was disagreeing with that quaintness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:34:42 2014 No.4735735 >>4735732 >I was disagreeing with that quaintness. What quaintness?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:40:42 2014 No.4735742

>>4735731
>For example: flowing lines are conducive to aerodynamics, and are also pleasing to the eye.

Thus for functional aesthetics the more flowing the lines the more functional the aerodynamics, right?

Oh, you said "also"; flowing lines are conductive to aerodynamics but just happen to 'also' [aka no direct correlation] to be aesthetically pleasing.

So which is it?
Flowy lines = happy aesthetic party times.
Or
More flowy = more aerodynamicly?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:41:42 2014 No.4735743 >>4735732 Ahem, >that art indeed has to beautiful to be considered art

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:41:42 2014 No.4735744 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or7PmaHIEEo

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:45:42 2014 No.4735747

>>4735742
>Thus for functional aesthetics the more flowing the lines the more functional the aerodynamics, right?

That's not how it works anon.

>Oh, you said "also"; flowing lines are conductive to aerodynamics but just happen to 'also' [aka no direct correlation] to be aesthetically pleasing.

The relationship can be causative as well.

A glock pistol for instance is purely functional, but that functionality and reliability causes endearment to the point where one may start considering it beautiful.

This may very well be the case with aerodynamics as well. I never said aerodynamics weren't considered beautiful because of functionality.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:46:42 2014 No.4735749 >>4735743 Wait, so are you >>4735699 ?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:50:42 2014 No.4735756

>>4735747
>Thus for functional aesthetics the more flowing the lines the more functional the aerodynamics, right?

>That's not how it works anon.

^THANK YOU! I know.

Tell you what; my previous examples don't seem to have had much luck; provide us with an an example of a non-functional aesthetic...

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:51:42 2014 No.4735759 >>4735749 Jes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:53:42 2014 No.4735766 >>4735756 >^THANK YOU! I know. I never said anything to the contrary. >provide us with an an example of a non-functional aesthetic Why?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:56:42 2014 No.4735772 >>4735766 Because as I said; I'm dying to know what a "functional aesthetic" is; so much so that I'll accept its counterfactual.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:58:42 2014 No.4735775 There is a difference between an artist and an artisan. If people don't know how to judge the art, they judge the craft. Example: OP

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:58:42 2014 No.4735776 >>4735772 I gave you two examples. Something is functionally aesthetic when its function makes it beatiful.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 07:59:43 2014 No.4735778 >>4735403 >Beauty is wrong

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:00:43 2014 No.4735780 >>4735759 So according to you art does not have to be beautiful, and your proof is a beautiful Magritte painting?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:01:42 2014 No.4735784
File: 99 KB, 312x372, 1392513777112.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735775
>If a person isn't brainwashed to appreciate art you could only appreciate if you're brainwashed, then I am superior to anyone who isn't brainwashed to appreciate it

I see.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:03:42 2014 No.4735789 >>4735784 That's basically how every idea works, yes: from moral to aesthetics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:04:42 2014 No.4735794 >>4735789 >people aren't born with an inherent sense of aesthetics That's wrong you know.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:05:42 2014 No.4735795 >>4735794 Don't tell him he's wrong, he's a subjectivitist, everything is fallible.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:07:42 2014 No.4735798

>>4735776
>Something is functionally aesthetic when its function makes it beatiful.

Henry Ford had nothing but black paint for his Model T's; they all came in black. The purpose of the paint is to coat the metal body so it doesn't rust. Thus paint is very good at being aesthetically functional because it prevents rust.

Wait. That's not what aesthetics concerns itself with, is it? Wouldn't it be more fitting to talk about the color black when discussing aesthetics?

The... functional aesthetics of black...
Or the functional aesthetics of single stage acrylic enamel...

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:08:42 2014 No.4735799 >>4735798 Are you having a nervous breakdown or something?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:08:42 2014 No.4735800 >>4735780 Precisely so.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:09:42 2014 No.4735802 >>4735800 How does a beautiful work of art prove that art doesn't have to be beautiful?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:11:42 2014 No.4735807 >>4735798 What on god's green fuck are you blabbering about?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:13:43 2014 No.4735812

>>4735799
One more try;

>Something is functionally aesthetic when its function makes it beatiful.

I have a supercharged muscle car with a blower in the hood. I can bolt on the sexy factory air scoop that came with it or I can bolt on a discarded mailbox that preforms equally as well.

According to functional aesthetics; which one is more aesthetically functional?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:14:43 2014 No.4735813 >>4735802 Well, what if instead it said it is not a beautiful painting?...

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:17:42 2014 No.4735817 >>4735812 I never said something that is functional is automatically beautiful. You have issues.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:18:42 2014 No.4735818 >>4735813 It's still going to be a beautiful painting.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:19:42 2014 No.4735821 >>4735817 >I never said something that is functional is automatically beautiful. OK, Um, who's the author of this then?: >>Something is functionally aesthetic when its function makes it beatiful.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:21:42 2014 No.4735824

>>4735795
I am a subjectivist only when it comes to art.

>>4735794
Just like people are born with an inherent sense of moral. The "brainwashing" occures later and is built upon these natural abilities.

Also, aesthetics are not the same as art, if you want to imply that. (If you don't, disregard everything after this.)
Aesthetics can be a part of an artwork, just like craft is part of an artwork - but art should not be judged based on either of these alone. The inherent "art" part about artworks is the sum of everything the artwork contains: its aethetics, its craftmanship, its meaning, its artistic theory (or lack thereof) - hell, even the time it was created!
Judging only the aethetics or the craft of an artwork means that you don't come out of your relative ivory tower, and don't bother to find out why it is an artwork, rather than a craft, or a decoration.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:21:42 2014 No.4735826

>>4735821
Oh I wrote that alright, and you have shit reading comprehension.

That in no way implies that everything that is functional is beautiful.

The fact that you want to come off all intellectual-like while lacking the basic logic to understand simple phrases is hilarious.

I told you you were out of your depth a good couple of posts ago.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:22:42 2014 No.4735829 >>4735824 >Just like people are born with an inherent sense of moral. I don't know about that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:23:42 2014 No.4735831 >>4735829 Then let me rephrase that: the ability to have moral. Do you agree with that?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:25:42 2014 No.4735835 >>4735831 Sure.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:25:42 2014 No.4735837

>>4735818
I suppose. But I think Margritte was riffing on symbolism and self-referentialiality; it's not a pipe, it's a painting of a pipe (and linguists may take what you conception of a pipe is in your mind from there) and this by extension perhaps we could say that things that propose to be what there are can be undone by a minute amount of subtext; that pipe is floating in space; I've never seen a pipe do that; it's not a very beautiful painting of a pipe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:27:42 2014 No.4735841 >>4735837 It's a very fine painting of a pipe, and whatever message there is does not take away from that, but only adds to it.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:32:42 2014 No.4735855

>>4735826
>I never said something that is functional is automatically beautiful.

>Something is functionally aesthetic when its function makes it beatiful.

>never said something functional is automatically beautiful
>when its function makes it beatiful

Reading comprehension.

Uhhh, OK.

I don't know if you think your reasoning is functionally beautiful but I bet you think it's at least functional, which, if effective, is beautiful in its, sometimes, way...

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:33:42 2014 No.4735857 >>4735523 >http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/quiz-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-modern-art-and-art >A tiny corner of a picture showing a few brush strokes >Is it modern art, or art?! Who can tell!? Tee hee!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:34:42 2014 No.4735860 >>4735527 >The Fountain by R Mutt >A piece submitted by Duchamp as an actual joke Hurr

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:36:21 2014 No.4735868 >>4735841 What if it's not a painting of a pipe at all? What if it is, by referring to itself, a self-referetial paradox that happens to be a painting. Isn't that what it is?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:37:21 2014 No.4735871 >>4735855 You have got to be kidding me. "Something is painted blue when its paint makes it blue" does not mean everything that is painted is blue. You better be under the influence of a powerful drug.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:38:20 2014 No.4735874 >>4735860 It may have started as a joke, it's still one of the most influential "works of art" of the modern age. Showing just how ridiculous the modern age can be when it comes to art.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:38:21 2014 No.4735873 >go to /ic/ >the very first part of their beginner tutorial is finding out if you're making the beginner's mistake of impressionistic drawing >go to /lit/ >my modernism! my impressionism! my lack of skill! baaaaaw

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:40:19 2014 No.4735878

>>4735873
Because /ic/ is about craft in particular, not about art in general.

Also, I'd say /lit/ is more about literature (and general ideas, if we take our high influx of philosophy and politics into consideration), so of course you won't find as many painters here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:42:19 2014 No.4735883 >>4735677 >I never said art had to be beautiful, that's a very outdated concept. All art has to be beatiful. It's only a question of beauty inherent in ugliness. Fucking kids who don't read their Schopenhauer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:44:19 2014 No.4735889 >>4735489 i always lol at this picture cause the sculpture on the left is way better that dragon looks like shit who wants to look at a dragon anyway

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:46:19 2014 No.4735894

>>4735878
>Because /ic/ is about craft in particular, not about art in general.
Art is craft.
Talking about "art in general" divorced from craft is like the philosophy of science circlejerk for unrelated academic leeches trying to justify their paycheck.
Most who involve themselves in it aren't even knowledgeable about the scientific method as used in common practice.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:48:19 2014 No.4735901 >>4735894 Art is not craft, atleast not entirely. Art is a sum of several things, craft being one of them. Or do you judge a novel on prose alone?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:50:19 2014 No.4735906 >>4735642 >It's right there on wikipedia, the opinion that "traditional values" aren't actually traditional but rather imposed ideology. that's true though

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:50:19 2014 No.4735907

>>4735901
>Art is not craft, atleast not entirely. Art is a sum of several things, craft being one of them.
Art is craft in it's entirety. All the other supposed parts of Art is tacked on afterwards by third-party observers.
>Or do you judge a novel on prose alone?
Are you divorcing narrative structure from craft?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:50:19 2014 No.4735908

>>4735871
>"Something is painted blue when its paint makes it blue"

>Something is functionally aesthetic when its function makes it beatiful.

OK; allow me to edit your claim; Something can posses a functional aesthetic when its function makes it beatiful.

The addition of 'can' allows this to not always be the case, OK. So far so good?

1. Usually when something is beautiful is has a functional aesthetic.

Thus we may conclude the adverse:

2. Usually when something is not beautiful it lacks an aesthetic functionality.

If you disagree with either of the above then by all means correct until it expresses a good approximation of the case for a "functional aesthetic".

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:56:19 2014 No.4735920

>>4735907
>All the other supposed parts of Art is tacked on afterwards by third-party observers.
I disagree. A good artist put thought into what he drew where and why. Sure, interpretation of thirds are still possible, and we can rarely know what exactly the artist though, but there is more to art than just craft.

>Are you divorcing narrative structure from craft?
No, I was just trying to make a point. Not every part of art is craft, since craft is an objective and fixed theory, art however is neither objective nor fixed.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:56:19 2014 No.4735922

>>4735908
>allow me to edit your claim; Something can posses a functional aesthetic when its function makes it beatiful.

No such edit is needed you moron.

>The addition of 'can' allows this to not always be the case

This message is conveyed without the 'can' as well.

>Usually when something is beautiful is has a functional aesthetic.

What? No. There are many things that are beautiful yet have no function.

You are too retarded to be real.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 08:57:19 2014 No.4735924

>>4735457
>http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm

None of this makes much sense. First of all, there is the obvious bias of this being written by a historian for the conservative think tank Free Congress Foundation. Second of all, he connects Lukac's brief governmental role in Hungary with "destroying Western culture itself" without actually explaining it. Third is the accusation of Lukac's implementing sex education policies in Hungary, which may be true, but as often as I've seen this claim I've *never* seen any proof that this actually happened.

Also, Freud's work has nothing to do with the kind of "conditioning" implied in using television to propagandize ideology. This article also makes me realize how much of a conspiracy theory cultural marxism is, considering this guy thinks that people in television are actually thinking about how to trick people into believing what they believe, rather than selling what will earn them the highest ratings, occasionally gaming "progressive" interests in order to be seen more favorably.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:03:19 2014 No.4735938 >>4735641 Literal illiterates who hang out at the Vatican... So still upper class persons.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:04:19 2014 No.4735941 >>4735938 art was hung in almost every church

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:04:19 2014 No.4735943

For all the Oswald Spengler you pleb historians read you apparently haven't read a single book on twentieth century history.

What tragic events occurred in the first half of the twentieth century to seriously shake the optimism in progress and human nature that had accumulated during the latter half of the nineteenth century?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:06:19 2014 No.4735948

Let's be honest, and this doesn't apply to everybody, how many people who have a problem with "modern art" even cared much about art (other than in a vague, peripheral way) before they realized they could take a stance on it that supported the conspiracy model of "everything is degenerating, therefore I have an excuse"?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:07:20 2014 No.4735950 >>4735943 Psychoanalysis

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:09:19 2014 No.4735955 >>4735950 it happened a century ago, retard

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:10:19 2014 No.4735958

>>4735924
>this guy thinks that people in television are actually thinking about how to trick people into believing what they believe
That's a thing actually. Lots of TV shows inclusions are politically motivated from the writers rather than sales-motivated from the PR people. I'm pretty sure i've seen interviews with some of your American directors more or less admitting as much as if it wasn't obvious already.
In news media it's even worse as I know from experience. It's like every political activist loser with a grudge against people outside their political bubble gets a free shoe-in. (although jokes on them, it being one of the most horrible jobs you can get here)

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:12:19 2014 No.4735964 >>4735542 Low Brow certainly seems the most fun.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:13:19 2014 No.4735965
File: 944 KB, 420x236, 1395282987155.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735943
>What tragic events occurred in the first half of the twentieth century to seriously shake the optimism in progress and human nature
The rise of mass communication devices.
You had people in the past unironically writing of angelic beauty and the ever-ascending man when people were literally living in their own shit.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:14:19 2014 No.4735968

>>4735958
There might be a handful of liberal communications majors putting an interracial couple in a commercial to feel better about themselves, but by no means is it connected to some actual plan to trick people. If you've seen interviews, post them don't just reference them and expect us to believe you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:15:19 2014 No.4735970 >>4735955 He asked what tragic event occurred in the first half of the twentieth century, which corresponds to "a century ago", stupidhead.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:18:19 2014 No.4735979 >>4735542 It's amazing how high brow I am considering all of the low-brow stuff I like (excluding the comics and the coleslaw).

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:21:19 2014 No.4735984 >>4735965 >says the guy indulging himself in a mass communication device

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:22:19 2014 No.4735987 >>4735965 How could the devices be the problem if the humans are the ones that use them?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:24:18 2014 No.4735989 >>4735943 >muh there can be no art/poetry/beauty after the holocaust! Fucking kikes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:26:18 2014 No.4735994 >>4735989 there can be, and the guy you're quoting is perfectly right. you're just too dumb or american to understand the consequences of the two world wars

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:30:19 2014 No.4736004

>>4735968
>here might be a handful of liberal communications majors putting an interracial couple in a commercial to feel better about themselves
No actually commercials are for marketing people and you wouldn't believe how butthurt liberals get in those circles. (what do you mean we have to have an all-white family if we want for it to sell?!)
>but by no means is it connected to some actual plan to trick people
"Trick" people is subjective. There are a fair deal of people who want to make their political views the dominant one and include representations of such when they can.
The news media people are much worse about it though, since they're the types who want to actively dictate the "right opinion" to their readers.
>If you've seen interviews
Give me a couple of mins.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:31:21 2014 No.4736011

>>4735989
>>4735994

I don't understand the quote, can you explain it? Given that poetry was around for the conceptions of Hell and sin (meaning that poetry could withstand the idea that people can be awful to each other), why would the Holocaust stand out?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:33:23 2014 No.4736017

>>4735922
>There are many things that are beautiful yet have no function.

You've equated beauty (aesthetics) with function. That's not what we're talking about; were talking about "functional aesthetics".

Are there things which are beautiful that don't have functional aesthetics? -No, how could there be?- the purpose of aesthetics, if they are functioning, is to be beautiful.

Say I have a garbage can that has a rectilinear slit in it for its opening. The opening works perfectly fine. We have previously established that we know to change the shape of that opening to something that is more teardrop in appearance we will have added "aesthetic functionality". [I kid]

Rectilinear opening; some aesthetic functionality.
Teardrop opening; more aesthetic functionality. [lol]

So what is something with no aesthetic functionality whatsoever? Would it be a garbage can with no opening? -No; that's only talking about the functionality of the garbage can lid.

The function of aesthetics is to be... aesthetic. If it isn't "aesthetic functional" then it isn't aesthetic. To say something is "aesthetically functional" is tautological (unless, of course, you're confusing aesthetics with utility). Paint is not aesthetically functional when it is used to prevent rust, it is aesthetic when it is considered for its visual (e.g.) appeal (or lack thereof).

>If those looks aren't functional they're purely for aesthetics.

^this happened^

Here's an example of the ultimate in functional aesthetics; the skeumorph.

G'nite!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:34:25 2014 No.4736020 >>4735994 No, he's just not pretending some pretentious faggot kike said the deepest statement ever about muh six million.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:38:39 2014 No.4736030

>>4735968
>post them don't just reference them and expect us to believe you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tLc16_xXlM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47oQCHk4OoQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mUVp5qq3SU
It's actually pretty funny since these guys only talked with the guy because he is a Harvard Law-educated Jew so he just had to be on the left in their mind.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:42:38 2014 No.4736042

>>4735984
>>4735987
Propaganda or even just Mass-communication.
Bombard people with atrocities, regardless of where and why, and they're less likely to be cheery about their situation regardless if it's true to their life or not.
Used to be a bit of a theme in comedy 20 years ago or so. The news trying to scare people from going outside that sort of thing.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:43:38 2014 No.4736044

>>4736030

Theres nothing nefarious about including a social agenda in your television programs. It's not a concerted effort by some secret society, but a choice made by individuals. The bottom line is always more important than any social value in the eyes of the studios and networks.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:47:37 2014 No.4736056

>>4736044
>Theres nothing nefarious about including a social agenda in your television programs.
Did I say nefarious?
It's clearly political inclusions to push their own political stance.
>It's not a concerted effort by some secret society
No one has claimed that. What's up with the strawmen?
Hollywood is simply saturated with progressives, hence most shows that do end up pushing political issues will push their very progressive ones.
>The bottom line is always more important than any social value in the eyes of the studios and networks.
Of course it is. The studio execs don't really give a shit. It's the writers and people intimately involved in the show who have a hand in the politics of TV shows.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:51:37 2014 No.4736063

>>4736030
The COPS example I will give you, as the man admits to purposefully showing a false reality for political reasons.

The Golden Girls example seems more akin to what I meant by the "well-meaning liberal" who thinks she's providing a voice for reality rather than altering it:

"If while entertaining, we could inject some social reality, and make some points, that was terrific...it's much less threatening to talk about abortion on a comedy show."

The Desperate Housewives guy creeps me out when he says stuff like "planting little seeds in the minds of people...it's just there and it's slowly changing a perception." It's very dehumanizing and arrogant. Still, I think if you want to fight this sort of thing you can easily just call it out for what it is without resorting to histrionics like "they're hypnotizing us!" (I'm not saying you said that btw). Start to question whether media is the appropriate place to push ideology and be reasonable about how you present the issue and people will likely agree because even lefties hate propaganda. It's just an interesting development that the new school of lefties have been confused into working within the structure rather than building alternatives.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 09:55:37 2014 No.4736067 File: 2.72 MB, 3000x2108, 2323023_fullsize.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I have a penchant for this

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:00:37 2014 No.4736072 >>4736063 What is the The Frankfurt School?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:05:37 2014 No.4736085

>>4736017
>You've equated beauty (aesthetics) with function.

What I said is function can lead to beauty.

What I did not say is "everything beautiful is functional" or "everything functional is beautiful".

>Are there things which are beautiful that don't have functional aesthetics?

Yes. A painting is pretty, but serves no other function.

You are either wildly inebriated, or a genuine idiot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:06:37 2014 No.4736087 File: 101 KB, 631x283, PicassoGuernica.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Modernism and jews Fast and formulaic art for the fast and formulaic age not governed by dogma

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:07:37 2014 No.4736090 Art finally became philosophical again.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:12:29 2014 No.4736099 The roman catholic church is still the best mecenate of God tier art http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUW-0koOx_0

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:13:29 2014 No.4736102 I hope /lit/ isn't of the same stupid rationale that /pol/ operates by: >If I like it, it's art >If I dislike it, it's not art

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:14:29 2014 No.4736106

>>4736063
I'm not American and our Left is firmly in favour of propagandizing. I used to be part of it until it went full New Left in the 90s and I just couldn't stand those "world citizen" neoliberal pseudo-leftists anymore.
They even get massively upset nowadays when working class people -internally- question their propagandizing of socioliberal views.
>two working class guys: guys we're fucking free-falling in our union representation, could you lay a damper on humping immigrants and calling whites a structural evil for like a week at least?
>immediate responses from bourgeoise gender studies academics and upper-middle class journalists follow, telling them to shut the fuck up and how they will never tolerate the socioconservative attitudes of the working class

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:15:29 2014 No.4736112 >>4736085 >you're confusing aesthetics with utility >A painting is pretty, but serves no other function. >inebriated >idiot

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:16:29 2014 No.4736119
File: 88 KB, 1281x852, e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4735968
The amount of underprivileged people in commercials and shows are obviously carefully measured to "fit national demographics" or to "oust negative stereotypes". It might not be a reptilian conspiracy but it's definitely deliberate. We've been promised that if we do this negative connotations and tensions will evaporate, but judging from the reactionary elements that are growing as we speak, it might end up counterproductive and rightfully so because when economies, happiness and birth rates decline and people are focusing on Firefox's CEO donating to an anti-gay marriage cause, then these people need to have their priorities checked.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:19:29 2014 No.4736128 >>4736102 The CIA literally pushed the modern art movement (which is objectively complete shit). Now please cry me a river of butthurt even though you know deep down that it really is talentless bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:20:29 2014 No.4736133 File: 442 KB, 2048x1361, ChigiLorenzetto.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4736099 Religious art is still basically degenerate if it doesn't operate within a religious space; it becomes wallpaper.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:23:30 2014 No.4736143 >>4736112 Do you even have a point anymore? Did you ever? I feel dumber for having read your posts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:26:29 2014 No.4736149 >>4736143 >If those looks aren't functional they're purely for aesthetics. Feeling's mutual.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:26:29 2014 No.4736151 >>4735498 >>4735889 This is simply a display of ignorance, clearly you never ever worked with wood at all. He fucking disembowled a tree and formed it. That is true art - borderlining on a Michelangelo megalomaniac need to create.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:31:29 2014 No.4736163

>>4736011

Good point. I'm not talking about just the holocaust-- but WW1, WW2, the Purges, mass communication, the phenomenon of Totalitarianism (see Hannah Arendt).

The intellectual threads of evil and sin in western culture prior to the twentieth century were always contained within a meaningful universe. Evil would be explained, understood, even justified within a larger--meaningful--cosmos. Of course there were exceptions to this (Nietszche, for example). This is certainly not to say that pre-twentieth century western culture was naively optimistic! However, it is fair to say that the above events unhinged, for many, and for some obliterated, this meaningful universe.

Evil had no cosmic explanation. The growth, success, and dominance of the democratic-capitalist state in the Western World compelled many intellectuals to figuratively turn inward away from the "system" and towards an art form of creativity, alienation, and spontaneous individual expression.

Can you see how postmodernism became so prevalent later on? There are interesting connections.

Now some thinkers called bullshit on this, of course. I'm thinking of Reinhold Niebuhr who developed a wonderfully sophisticated understanding of Man's divine orientation within a meaningful universe as well as his paradoxical potential for sin and goodness.

>>	AnelCrest !m9jxTLhLcw Fri Apr 4 10:31:29 2014 No.4736164 >>4735448 It's a way to blame the jews for this culture being shit.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:32:29 2014 No.4736167

>>4736149
Is there a problem with that phrase?

If you design something purely for function, then its looks are functional (and perhaps unintentionally aesthetic as well).

If you design something purely for aesthetics, then its looks are purely for aesthetics.

Pretty simple concept.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:34:29 2014 No.4736174 >>4735874 >it's still one of the most influential "works of art" of the modern age. And you just happen to ignore why. Which is ok, but it makes you an ignorant fuck.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:36:29 2014 No.4736180 >>4736133 can you explain it better?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:36:29 2014 No.4736181 >>4736174 >And you just happen to ignore why. What makes you say that?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:39:29 2014 No.4736190

>>4735448
Have a wiki definition:
"Cultural Marxism refers to a school or offshoot of Marxism that conceives of culture as central to the legitimation of oppression, in addition to the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized.[1] An outgrowth of Western Marxism (especially from Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School) and finding popularity in the 1960s as cultural studies, cultural Marxism argues that what appear as traditional cultural phenomena intrinsic to Western society, for instance the drive for individual acquisition associated with capitalism, nationalism, the nuclear family, gender roles, race and other forms of cultural identity;[1] are historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy. Cultural Marxists use Marxist methods (historical research, the identification of economic interest, the study of the mutually conditioning relations between parts of a social order) to try to understand the complexity of power in contemporary society and to make it possible to criticise what, cultural Marxists propose, appears natural but is in fact ideological."

It's closely related to Gramsci's notions of Cultural Hegemony and the effect the Frankfurt schools writings had on the New Left, particularly Marcuse, hence the Marxist label. (i'd argue there's also an element of Karl Popper's Neoliberal "open society" obsession in there though)
Note that the Right sees this, perhaps rightly perhaps not, as a form of deconstructionism not based in any actual truth but a political vehicle for attacking the truth. (in a manner similar to art deconstructionsim really)

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:41:29 2014 No.4736200 >>4735403 Impressionism, which lead to Expressionism. Read On the Genealogy of Art Games by Alex Kierkegaard, he talks about the definition of art, its decline, what the decline meant, where art has headed, how to reprimand the situation, etc.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:43:29 2014 No.4736205 >>4736128 >objectively complete shit >talentless bullshit Yep, sounds like pol, please apply yourself

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:46:29 2014 No.4736218 >>4736200 Go to bed Alex.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:51:29 2014 No.4736228

>>4736128
I don't really care if something is talentless: it's still art. I'm not of the stupid mind to think my aesthetics define something as being art or not. A bad film is still a film; a bad book is still a book; bad art is still art. A single line drawn through the center of a blank canvas is as much art as the Mona Lisa.

Art doesn't inherently mean good. Let that sink in.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:52:30 2014 No.4736234 >>4736102 It makes zero logical sense to look at something that repulses you and say "this is art." If you disagree, man, your definition and understanding of art is all fucked and the reason why art declined in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:53:29 2014 No.4736237 >>4736205 >Hurr fucking durr muh squiggles >Muh broken plaster spray painted to represent the cultural oppression of featherless ducklings

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:53:30 2014 No.4736235 >>4736228 >I don't really care if something is talentless: it's still art. No, it's a drawing. Art holds more connotations than that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:53:30 2014 No.4736236 >>4736234 "logical" I don't think you know what this word means.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:54:29 2014 No.4736241 >>4736237 So is that how you define the modern art movement you previously mentioned?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:55:29 2014 No.4736244 >>4736228 Yes yes yes we've all see. The can of artist's shit. Just realize that literally everyone outside of you useless, self-perpetuating education bubble knows you are all beyond retarded. Let that sink in.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:56:29 2014 No.4736247 File: 322 KB, 1608x2001, 1375911382571.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Fuck I need to stay off /lit/. It's filled with toxic maniacs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 10:58:29 2014 No.4736255 File: 926 KB, 250x197, 1396399199563.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4736247 >toxic

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:00:29 2014 No.4736263 >>4735403 It got better. >hur my lizard brain needs to be hypnotized by realism Great job, guys.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:02:29 2014 No.4736267 File: 1015 KB, 420x237, 1395364270254.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735529 >mfw Duchamp started all this bullshit to say 'fuck you' to complacency and stagnating muck of art world >mfw what he created a fucking monster and ruined art

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:02:29 2014 No.4736268 >>4736263 >he thinks the left is meant to be realistic Plebs. Plebs everywhere.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:06:29 2014 No.4736278

>>4736236
art [ahrt] Show IPA
noun
1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

>beautiful
>appealing
>of more than ordinary significance

I'm not going to call a piece of shit art. If I did, I'd be throwing all logic out the window.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:09:29 2014 No.4736289 >>4736267 >it's nirvana's fault for nickelback that's not how it works

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:11:29 2014 No.4736298 File: 1.66 MB, 320x180, Rage.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >This thread >MFW >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS5ZkPXkto0

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:17:29 2014 No.4736312 >>4736278 Using one definition for a concept rich in texture, complexity, history, and meaning and then limiting aesthetic philosophy to only that which can be deduced from your shitty definition... Are you 13?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:24:29 2014 No.4736333

>>4736312
>one definition
THE definition. That is what art has always been, and will always be. Even to this day, "artwork" such as minimalist paintings, piles of candy on the floor, urinals, and other ridiculous things all have one thing in common: there is at least one person praising them as art. Art needs appraisal in order to be called art, there's no way around this understanding aside from being an idiot. Beauty and appeal are a NECESSITY in the realm of art, in calling anything art.

What caused the decline in art to forms that were simpler and cruder, and much poorer in skill and quality, was the perversion of this understanding. You want to read more on this I suggest reading the book here >>4736200

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:25:29 2014 No.4736335 >>4736149 If looks aren't functional, what other reason could they have if not aesthetics? Explain yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:33:29 2014 No.4736359 File: 166 KB, 760x844, notart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:36:30 2014 No.4736370 >>4736333 >THE definition Yep, you're 13.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:41:29 2014 No.4736382
File: 53 KB, 500x375, wh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>see /pol/ image about 'The Jewish artist must create something pathological, deformed, to reflect his inner nature' or whatever
>yeah yeah
>later
>looking at Tracy Emin's horseshit art that is like someone in the 1990s parodying modern art
>looking at Damien Hirst's IF I PUT ENOUGH MAGGOTS ON A DEAD CAT, IS IT ART?? ARE YOU SHOCKED YET?? PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME and general plagiarism and douchedom
>who the fuck buys this shit
>mfw I stumble on Chaarles Saatchi
>mfw I realise his company produced the Cheerios interracial ad
>mfw /pol/ was actually right

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:43:29 2014 No.4736386 >>4736370 Nice argument.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:44:29 2014 No.4736390 >>4736234 This post is stupid and you have a shallow understanding of the human condition.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:48:30 2014 No.4736400

>>4735403
I believe that art can be good or bad.

For example, I believe that the composition in the Guernica, to say something popular, is beautiful and painful (By the way, that painting is huge when you see it in the museum, really impressive).

You can say it is not, or that it is totally worthless. It is subjective, I believe.

The thing is that when art looks easy to make, tons of people will go there and make their art, putting an pseudointellectual meaning to it or something.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:58:30 2014 No.4736418

>>4735460

If this were true, then why aren't all movies impressionists? Why do movies resort to photography?

Aren't there more interesting things to do with mimetics than abstraction?

Abstract art is extremely limited while realistic art has endless possibilities. No amount of red stains will ever have the power of a recognisable image, because that's the word we live in.

We don't live in red stains.

The best evidence that modern art is shit is that nobody gives a fuck about art anymore.

Bring it back.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:59:29 2014 No.4736422 >>4736382 Keep looking and you may find yourself quite surprised. There's a reason most of the criticism is just OH MY GOD PLS GO SHITLORD SHITLORD SHITLORD

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 11:59:30 2014 No.4736421 File: 768 KB, 1680x1050, 1396627154032.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4735468

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:02:29 2014 No.4736426 >>4735505 >suffering and anxiety aren't a part of a human condition You're from anglosphere, aren't you?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:04:30 2014 No.4736428 >>4736418 >The best evidence that modern art is shit is that nobody gives a fuck about art anymore. In order for this to be a good argument, you'd have to prove that people ever gave a shit about art more than the minority who do now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:05:29 2014 No.4736435 >>4735468 >drawing yourself into a picture of great men just because God, Raphael was such a fagott.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:05:29 2014 No.4736436

Philosophy. Art reflects the philosophy in which it was created. 19th century art was of a very monarchical theme. The United Kingdom ruled over the civilized world, and all the while Religion was at it's peak, despite the scientific revolution of the renaissance. On the left we see a great detail of the human organism, as if it were to house a spirit and display a dogmatic concept. On the right, is 'modernism'. Where you'll find the shape and form of the human organism becoming blurred, as if to retreat into a cognitive state of mind.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:05:29 2014 No.4736437 >>4736382 Oh,come on, they just got a criticism of Kafka and got it to all jews.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:06:29 2014 No.4736438 >>4736435 >500 dead white men >great Yay Imperialism !

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:08:29 2014 No.4736444

Art without a function, a humble, down to earth function, such as surrounding ourselves with beauty, is like a teenager, loose, arrogant, stupid, inexperienced, uneducated, narcissistic.

This would be fine if we didn't pay with our taxes for these "artists".

In France, they have this play, funded by the people, where children from the audience are asked to throw real turds at the face of Christ.

Why should anyone have to pay for that, especially Christians?

It's not art, it's thinly disguised propaganda.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:09:29 2014 No.4736446 >abstract expression >majority opinion does not constitute objective truth #wrekt

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:10:29 2014 No.4736449

>>4736382
You'd have to pretty much simplify things down to kindergarten level in order for any of that to actually be real proof of anything. Saatchi was always into that kind of art. *Then* he got money and power (after working for Margaret fucking Thatcher no less).

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:12:30 2014 No.4736453 >>4735668 It's all you see because you're uneducated about art. It's that easy. The trained eye sees much more; the untrained eye sees beauty, which is already more than anything contemporary art does.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:14:29 2014 No.4736458 >>4735699 Few people actually understand that painting. It's easy. >you can't smoke it, so it's not a pipe, just a painting of a pipe >deeeeeeeeeeppppppp In case anyone was fooled.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:15:29 2014 No.4736462

>>4736390
It's not difficult to grasp what I'm saying at all, yet you and so many people do nothing but fling insults and erroneous remarks whenever my kind of argument appears. It's ridiculous.

Stop and take a good look at the whole process of calling something art and what it means to call it art and you'll realize the same thing I do, which is that in order for something to be given the title of "art" it must be praised by the person(s) attributing that title to it. Therefore, all art is "good art" and even "bad art" is being rendered as good, to somebody. If it was truly bad, it would not be called art. There must be something beautiful and appealing in a thing's qualitative nature to be called art by someone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:16:29 2014 No.4736466 >>4736458 >implying art has a point >implying there aren't a million interpretations >implying if someone says this to you they shouldn't be killed

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:22:29 2014 No.4736479

>>4736462
>Therefore, all art is "good art" and even "bad art" is being rendered as good, to somebody. If it was truly bad, it would not be called art. There must be something beautiful and appealing in a thing's qualitative nature to be called art by someone.

I already addressed this. Bad art, by pure definition, is ART. Art isn't inherently good or bad: art is art is art is art.

Again: bad film is still a film; bad books are still books; bad pizza is still pizza. You can disagree about the aesthetics of an art-piece; but, it will forever be art regardless of your taste.

STOP EQUATING ART WITH GOOD. The only thing you can truly state is that, "This art is good." Any remarks about it being/not-being art have to be further than an appeal to aesthetics and come down to language [that, again, is beyond your taste].

This needs to be said again: STOP EQUATING ART WITH GOOD. STOP.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:23:33 2014 No.4736484
File: 641 KB, 2010x3155, 1395395971166.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4736382
>mfw reading about the 1910s art scene here and finding out the earliest modernist influence was a jewish expressionist who the entire art scene back then hated with a passion, calling his art "root- and homeless dickers art" and derided as a hack imitator of Matisse whose only skill was in marketing
It really looks like shit too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:26:33 2014 No.4736491 File: 414 KB, 1512x1800, picasso-met-2010-32.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:27:33 2014 No.4736495

>>4736479
>art is art
Wrong, because what that means is that art refers to NOTHING and has no functioning purpose at all to warrant its own term.

Art has to refer to something, and it always has. What it's always referred to is things which are, put simply, GOOD.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:34:33 2014 No.4736520 >>4736495 >what is l'art pour l'art And no, my dear americans, it is not an incitement to stuff your face with greasy food.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:37:33 2014 No.4736529 >>4736495 so a piece of art you don't like is not considered art?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 12:44:49 2014 No.4736545 >>4736529 Trick question. If I don't like it it's simply not a piece of art, not "a piece of art I don't like." I don't like it, therefore it's not art at all to me.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature