Structuralism and Post-structuralism

File: 31 KB, 244x350, c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Structuralism and Post-structuralism Anonymous Wed Oct 29 21:45:48 2014 No.5654908 [Reply] [Original]

>structuralism
>post-structuralism

What's the deal with people's sudden obsession with this? In the last two years I keep seeing it all the time on 4chan. And I heard it in real life a few times too, used by "hipsters" (it's a meaningless buzzword, but I don't know what to call them) and nerdy suburban white teenagers. Seems like ever since this Derrida guy got more popular and acknowledged, all the kids have been talking about this and name-dropping this "le epic structuralism" and "post-structuralism". Is (post-)structuralism an epic new meme?

Why do people keep using this so much? Is it to show that they know a new word or something? To seem cultured? Can someone explain this to me? And what exactly are these terms? Why are they being mentioned so often? And is it somehow related to "deconstruction" (and what is that?, I read that no one knows, not even the guy who coined the term)? And what do people usually refer to when they mention structuralism or post-structuralism? What areas/activities or studies? Is it related to philosophy? Is it a movement in philosophy? Is it related to arts? Literature? Sociology? Psychology? What is it? Is it somehow related to modernism and metamodernism?

What books should I read to learn more about it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 21:48:15 2014 No.5654918 Learn how to google, friend

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 21:48:41 2014 No.5654919 >>5654908 Holy fucking shit. I'm writing an essay of sorts on this, be patient, I'll be back in a few hours.

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 21:53:45 2014 No.5654937

>>5654908
>>Is it to show that they know a new word or something? To seem cultured?
exactly

post structuralism was a very important concept in continental philosophy in the mid 20th century, mostly in the writings of french philosophers. dumb hipsters on the internet appropriate terms like that to sound intellectual. why it took them 40 years to pick up on the term, I have no idea

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 21:56:44 2014 No.5654951 File: 49 KB, 584x425, hacer-un-homero.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5654908 That's America catching up on their shit for you. The rest of the world has been discussing Foucault for four decades by now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 21:59:17 2014 No.5654959 >>5654908 >i don't know what this word means >other people do >it must be a meme that people only invoke to seem cultured the reality op is that nobody does anything to seem cultured. except maybe write embarrassing posts like yours

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:01:47 2014 No.5654968

>>5654908
>Altermodern
>Anti-anti-art
>Hypermodernity
>Intentism
>Metamodernism
>Structuralism
>Post-structuralism
>Neomodern
>Serialism
>New Sincerity
>Spectralism
>Postmodernism
>Post-postmodernism
>Remodernism
>Remodernist film
>Stuckism International
>Transmodernism

I really want to like the art world but god damn art critics sure make it hard.

It's why I was never able to get into it. Why is there a need for all these classifications and names?

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:02:12 2014 No.5654971
File: 88 KB, 400x660, 9936a80b64e28950cf109b502a4d12d2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

B-but...
I can't tell if you're baiting of if tour sincere! That's some great stuff man!

Let's see.
It's nothing new, structuralism is more than a hundred years old and it's pretty much the first serious method to (among many things) analyse literature. Obviously it's gonna remain a topic to touch just as we read about Freud when talking about psychoanalisis, even if you, or the world, don't like it it's still the origin of many things.
That's not to say that a lot of ideas from structuralism aren't valid, unlike that absurd idea that post-modernity is a thing that rules us, most theorist prefer to take a bit from both schools.
Post-structuralism, still, made a lot of serious corrections to the previous theories, and anyone with common sense would recognize the basic ideas (even if they have pretty complex ramifications later on).

Todorov is the go to starting point for structuralism, then Roland Barthes is a pretty comfy (although some times complex) author to to walk from pre to post.

But all in all great bate, even if it's just "I don't wanna read the full wiki article" bait.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:03:40 2014 No.5654982 >>5654971 >analyze >psychoanalysis forgot to write words well

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:06:59 2014 No.5654993 >>5654968 I wonder if /lit/ knows what all these terms means.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:08:41 2014 No.5655000 >>5654993 Half of them mean nothing, the other half can be easily googled and they should be understood by anyone with an introductory understanding of literary critic (which, you know, isn't a requierement for being here anyway)

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:09:06 2014 No.5655003 >>5654971 It's not a bait, I really want to know all this stuff. I feel like I'm missing out and like I'm the only one who doesn't know what these terms mean.

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:09:44 2014 No.5655004

derrida is literally a fucking retard, he does make points but they dont really fit together or even support each other.

he was never able to describe what the fuck he was actually talking about and i have read writing and difference several times trying to understand what the fuck he is talking about, and a good chunk of his other work.

he does have things to say, and some of it is actually interesting. but ultimately i think he was just good at asking interesting questions that really blurred the lines of the topics at hand.

He honestly would not be such a cunt if he didnt try to make his whole bullshit body of work seem like some 2deep4u theory.

its just thoughts patched together like an ugly ass quilt.

you cant "penetrate a woman" when you have sex because human beings are just tubes with holes on each end
WOW thanks derrida you really 'deconstructed' my view of humans being not tubes

simply epic

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:10:07 2014 No.5655008 >>5654908 I always find amusing the desperate need to name things, even more with overused prefixes like meta, core, post, etc.

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:15:09 2014 No.5655028

>>5655008
It's not a desperate need, it's just a way of describing things more specifically for people who that might be useful for.

If someone that isn't really all that into music asks you what kind of music Godspeed is, you could probably just say a rock band, and that would be fine because they wouldn't care much beyond that. But for someone that's really into music saying they are second wave post-rock might actually be pretty useful to them, since that tells them much more specifically what they sound like.

The only time it's 'wrong' to use these type of descriptors is when you know that the person wouldn't get much usefulness from it and you're just trying to come off as erudite by using terms you know they have no use for. But that doesn't mean the terms have no use, it just means they need to be used in the appropriate context for them to be useful.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:16:46 2014 No.5655036 >>5655003 Hope I helped you a bit. Do you ahve real specific questions?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:23:20 2014 No.5655056 >>5655004 Thanks. >>5655036 Yeah, you did a bit. And I don't know. I want to know everything about this and be cultured like everyone else, but I don't know where to start.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:24:30 2014 No.5655062 >>5655004 >he does make points but they dont really fit together or even support each other. What are you talking about? I've read plenty of criticism of Derrida, and I've never come across 'his points don't support each other'.

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:34:21 2014 No.5655097

>>5655056
>I want to know everything about this and be cultured like everyone else,
You know that this is something people go to college to study and devote as much time as a STEM or something, right? There are people who devote all their lives to just one of this authors, Zizek got tenured and published way before being a movie meme for his understanding of just Lacan and Hegel. Check the wiki pages of Structuralism and see what things out of that really interest you. Also, if you want, check the one for Barthes to see how he goes around different theories and sort of commenting on them from his own side, that's what most theorists do with their lives.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:36:15 2014 No.5655104 >>5655062 He didn't get him and got mad, that's what every post getting mad at an important writer tends to be. It's even sadder when you see it in college.

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:46:15 2014 No.5655135

>>5655097
Can I read Derrida with only having an entry level knowledge of these philosophers and their works: Locke, Beckett, Hume, Hegel, Kant, Russell, Camus, Schopenhauer, Nietszche and Heidegger?

Does he reference them too often? Will I understand anything?

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:47:34 2014 No.5655142

>>5655104
>in philosophy class
>group of people talking about Lucy
>some bimbo says "just imagine what the human race could do if we unlocked the rest of our brains"
>I chime in and tell her 10 percent brain thing is a myth
>She responds with "I don't even know you" and her friends laugh

why is the world so cruel

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:47:42 2014 No.5655143

>>5654937
To be fair, post-structuralism didn't really catch on in the American intellectual community until the mid 1980s. That's still a solid amount of time, but you can imagine its slow diffusion from France, to the USA, to the bulk of American students.

Well, we're in that last phase. With a massive amount of students being taught by TAs or professors who wrote or are writing their theses on French post-structuralists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:53:29 2014 No.5655167 >>5655135 You need a firm grounding in the philosophical tradition to understand Derrida unless you plan on doing some serious secondary reading.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 22:54:54 2014 No.5655175 >>5655167 fuck philosophy is so fucking stupid

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:02:03 2014 No.5655198

>>5654968
>>>5654908 (OP) #
>Chemistry
>Biology
>Physics
>Astrophysics
>Displacement
>Functions
>Evolution
>Theoreticla Physics
>Radioactivity
>Quantum Mechanics
>Newtonian Physics
>Gravitational Pull
>Photo-electric effect
>Periodic
>Vectors
>Relativity
>String Theory
>I really want to like the science and math world but god damn scientist sure make it hard.
>It's why I was never able to get into it. Why is there a need for all these classifications and names?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:05:05 2014 No.5655205 >>5655175 It's spooky.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:06:25 2014 No.5655208 >>5655198 is there a difference in quantum physics and quantum mechanics?

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:06:47 2014 No.5655211

>>5654908

The problem with all post-everything philosophies is the fact that their opposition offers no refutation to the actual content of their ideas and theories and instead, just like you, dismiss them with platitudes and comments based only on appearances (hur dur french hipsters, charlatans, der hero contrarians, lol french people amirite?).
This lack of opposition of a meaninful nature allows this form of thought to spread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:07:29 2014 No.5655213 >>5655205 It's not, it's just a lifelong thing. Dedicating yourself to it and getting to understand every philosopher and school of thought.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:08:36 2014 No.5655218 >>5654908 These concepts have been around for 50 years. They're probably older than you are.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:11:46 2014 No.5655228 >>5655218 theyre only now becoming popular

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:18:42 2014 No.5655241 >>5655142 She got you good, anon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:22:14 2014 No.5655253 Is structural film somehow related to structuralism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOzOVLxbCE

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:25:56 2014 No.5655264 >>5655135 Derrida is the kind of author people have been milking for PhDs for decades. He isn't trying to be newcomer friendly, you should check some colleges syllabus and have a good companion book that dumbs him down

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:27:40 2014 No.5655271 >>5655142 >>5655241 Classic "oh shit you just proved me wrong so I'll just make fun of you" response. Never change, high school. >>5655264 >He isn't trying to be newcomer friendly Derrida was such an asshole.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:29:56 2014 No.5655283 Someone post some images, this is an imageboard. I can't follow this thread.

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:35:10 2014 No.5655302

>>5655142
>>5655241
#rekt
You never even got a chance

>>5655175
>you need a firm grounding
>philosophy is so fucking stupid
your the future of academia, son

>>5655208
Are you saying that there isn't a difference between regular physics and regular mechanics?

>>5655211
Why are you hoping to find academic opposition in 4chan?
"Most post-everything" (by which I assume you mean postmodernism and poststructuralism) have their own critics inside of the movement, just like many other currents that were born from academia instead of being born in practice.

>>5655213
Yep. Just like Physics.

>>5655228
lol

>>5655253
Tangentially, There wouldn't be structural film without the analytic current but not the other way around. Both focus on the structures that go beyond the simple unit of work and what makes a genre or a medium, but structural film limits itself to a single message and styles by proposing an aproach, structuralism studies the bigger picture and why it exists.

Great stuff you shared. It's a bit slow to watch in 4chan but I'll check it later.

Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:37:12 2014 No.5655310
File: 11 KB, 225x182, RolandBarthes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5655271
>Derrida was such an asshole.
He didn't lower himself like a bitch so the masses could love him and pushed his ideas way beyond what others did. If Foucault didn't keep trying to get teens to understand him he would had been so much greater.

>>5655283
Image of what?
I can keep posting traps, but I feel smug Barthes fits better

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:40:58 2014 No.5655327 >>5655142 You lived the laughinggirls.jpeg meme What did you do after she castrated you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:45:35 2014 No.5655342 >>5655310 >being an intellectual hipster >>>/lit/

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:48:53 2014 No.5655351 >>5655342 I'm a young aspiring intellectual, of course I'm home. Don't worry, I'll kill myself before really creating any impactful content.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:51:21 2014 No.5655358 >>5655271 Oh the ironing

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 29 23:54:49 2014 No.5655369 >>5655253 >That three act structure

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 00:15:01 2014 No.5655418 >>5655253 I actually finished it. Probably the best 40 mins I've wasted in 4chan.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 00:23:11 2014 No.5655432

>>5655135
>>5655167
>>5655264

Just chiming in to say that Speech and Phenomena is fairly accessible even if it's the first philosophy book you've ever read, because he explicates what Husserl is doing step by step before he deconstructs it. It's a pretty good introduction to Derrida's thought and the only work of his I've really enjoyed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 00:33:20 2014 No.5655453 >>5655432 Cool, not the anon asdking in the first place but I'll check it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 00:42:47 2014 No.5655488 >>5655302 Regular physics don't fix my car!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 00:46:06 2014 No.5655494 >>5655302 >Are you saying that there isn't a difference between regular physics and regular mechanics? They're the same in that I don't give a shit about either.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 00:56:12 2014 No.5655522 >>5655494 Then quantum versions are also the same and I don't see why you would ask in the first place. >>5655488 Physics sort of make it work, I guess? It's a pretty abstract realm.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:05:12 2014 No.5656086

>>5654908

Basically, one beautiful day, somewhere before there were any world wars yet except the one with Napoleon, there was this high-strung, French linguistic who was like:

>Hey guyz, what possible meaning could it have writing down every single word in the world? Let's study THE STRUCTURE of language. Here, let me start: Language consists of three parts!! 1) The arbitrary sound or combination of words, 2) The meaning, 3) The thought behind it.

Everyone was so impressed by this that many tried to repeat it in other subjects. Most prominently the unfortunately named Claude Lévi-Strauss, an anthropologist.

>Hey guyz!!!

He said, his dark voice glowing with mirth vehemently.

>I think we've been studying people literally for too long. What if all human cultures are based around the same structure? Like for there to be a culture, there has to be an enemy, and they have to have this father figure, and shit!

From this day on STRUCTURALISM had become a thing, and some even argued it had begun long before Saussure. Wasn't Freud's exploration of the structure beneath human minds structuralist? Wasn't Marx a structuralist when he figured out the future of human history by looking at its internal tick?

One rainy day, probably a bit after World War 2, some people started thinking these things were fucking bullshit. Enter post-structuralism.

>Hey guyz!!

(Deridda among others quipped.)

>I tell you guys, you be wrong!!!! Mannnn. (Not Thomas Mann!) And here is the reason why, yo yo: If everything contains a hidden structure, controlling how things are, then how can you trust that there isn't a hidden structure controlling how YOU see things? Like, even something as simple as Saussure, how the fuck, mon chiens et chats, do you even fucking know there are human thoughts when all we can use to communicate are signs? Then certainly we don't know that the structures controlling are words are stable. Nothing makes any sense!!!! LALALALALA.

More in general, I would call structuralism and post-structuralism a movement that covers most of the "interpretive" sciences. So you'll see little of it in psychology, if any at all, but tons in literature, philosophy, and sociology. It also depends on your country. You're more likely to run into these things in the more continental countries, such as France, and less so in the analytical and pragmatic institutions of the US, UK, Northern Europe, etc.

Structuralism mirrors modernism in arts, in that it's an attempt to see science in a new way, while post-structuralism mirrors postmodernism in the arts in that it's a realization that nothing makes sense, and let's just say crazy bullshit and amuse ourselves.

The reason post-structuralism is "hard to define", and can't even be defined by its creators, is, like in the case of postmodernism, that they don't believe in something as sturdy as a definition. So defining themselves would go against the movements main point.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 07:48:37 2014 No.5656352 >>5655418 >>5655369 You can't be serious. It's complete garbage. How could you watch the entire thing?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 08:49:24 2014 No.5656427 >>5656086 Good read, you forgot to mention Barthes though.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 09:02:38 2014 No.5656460

>>5654908
>What's the deal with people's sudden obsession with this? In the last two years I keep seeing it all the time on 4chan. And I heard it in real life a few times too, used by "hipsters" (it's a meaningless buzzword, but I don't know what to call them) and nerdy suburban white teenagers. Seems like ever since this Derrida guy got more popular and acknowledged, all the kids have been talking about this and name-dropping this "le epic structuralism" and "post-structuralism". Is (post-)structuralism an epic new meme?
>Why do people keep using this so much? Is it to show that they know a new word or something? To seem cultured? Can someone explain this to me? And what exactly are these terms? Why are they being mentioned so often? And is it somehow related to "deconstruction" (and what is that?, I read that no one knows, not even the guy who coined the term)? And what do people usually refer to when they mention structuralism or post-structuralism? What areas/activities or studies? Is it related to philosophy? Is it a movement in philosophy? Is it related to arts? Literature? Sociology? Psychology? What is it? Is it somehow related to modernism and metamodernism?

post-structuralism is the centerpiece of theory in certain parts of the humanities, so assuming that your temporals are accurate, this would probably mean that /lit/ has had more users enrolled in university in the humanities in the last two years than it had before.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 09:10:45 2014 No.5656485

>>5656086
Your initial point is sort of correct, although pretending that analytic philosophy doesn't have its fair share of "hey guys what if there's even more minimal shit to care about" is disingenuous, most continental countries teach both currents at the same time and don't care that much about that imaginary difference.

Also, even though structuralism at first tried to be as scientific as possible that doesn't mean it really tried to be a science. Saying it like that gives the idea of subordination to real science and it's silly, the french guys refered to themselves as philosophers, not scientists.

You don't seem to get, or care about, post-structuralism and post-modernity. "Anything goes" is at best the HS interpretation of a few theories from that current without a full explanation. You just can't close post-modernism as a set criteria because it's a current born at academia with correction and counterarguments built inside it, most theories include counter theories and become sort of clusterfucky if you don't take one at the time and see how it evolved thorough time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 09:12:35 2014 No.5656492 >>5656352 "Things I don't like" isn't the definition of garbage. You have to like structuralism in film and enjoy seeing how much you can do with as little as possible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 09:13:36 2014 No.5656495 >>5656460 And that we were trolling the arpanet with it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 09:41:45 2014 No.5656593 I'm going to buy Writing and Difference today. I hope I understand at least 50% of it, I don't know much about philosophy in the last 300 years.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 09:44:57 2014 No.5656610 >>5656593 Just don't come here to post about everyone is stupid and writes stuff without sense if you don't understand certain points.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 10:09:53 2014 No.5656696

>>5656593
What is it to read Derrida? Is it not to read reading itself? But how does one read reading if one cannot read? Derrida presents his own "readings" of reading, but then what do I read? I "bought" Writing and Difference - which itself is a negation of buying, an erasure of "that which is not bought"- in order to get to grips with Derrida who I'd always-already had trouble understanding. I'd read two introductory texts that I thought (or "thought I", the presupposition of the presence of I in thought, and thought in I, an erasure of the thought-i (thought-eye, as in seeing or being seen, as an eye never sees itself)) would give me a nice solid grounding (to be ground-ed, an inversion of flight, of distance). I really understood them and had a good time dealing with the heavier concepts within(out) them but felt that I had to try reading the man himself. You can't rely on secondary stuff alone, so I bought this book to help me (or did me help? As Malarme said, or did not say, as saying is a not saying of the said-(un)"Said". Like Edward Said).

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 10:16:02 2014 No.5656705

>>5656485

Ahh, yes, I admit I might have antagonized continentals a bit too much, and that there's not that much polarization really. Both are usually taught. There is a big difference, I think though, between universities that allow, and even encourage people like Zizek and Derrida to do their thing, and those who demand clarity. This to me is the true difference between continental, and analytical traditions, not the subjects of the individual philosophers.

Your second issue, I don't understand. I never even use the word "scientific".

Finally, it's true. I don't even as much as skim the surface of the complexity of post-structuralist thinking, but this is because I don't see the interest in any thinking that's fundamentally self-contradictory, unless you are going to participate in postmodernist debates, which I hope, in desiring the intellectual resources of any country with a university to not be wasted, will not be of in-depth interest to anyone new to these fields.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 10:16:41 2014 No.5656707 >>5656696 If you see interviews Derrida didn't talk like a pretentious faggot trying to poorly mimic the way Derrida wrote.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 10:22:57 2014 No.5656721 >>5656707 But he wrote like a pretentious faggot.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 10:36:32 2014 No.5656764

>>5656705
When you see academics like Zizek or Derrida you have to relly pay attention to the context in which they were part of academia to see why some university would pay them to do their things (besides teaching, of course). Zizek had more than a few internationally respected publications retaking abandoned threads from Lacan, even if he likes playing the clown and rambling about pretty much anything, he's still an academic (when he wants to). Derrida appeared in a time in whcih french philosohpy was pretty behind its times, in the video that tends to get posted about Chomsky answering Zizek's criticisms he comments on how France was barely getting to know aspects of german philosophy decades after they ahd been absroved bi the states and most of the world just because it was a pretty closed phil circuit; in the 70's they try to compensate and push their own thinkers as much as possible under the post-modernism label and you get such opposing approaches as Derrida and Foucault, with many sub theorists like Barthes. The result is a "movement" that is tied more for the time it appears, the nationality of the source ideas and the topics it branched from than for specific topics or postulates (not so different from "analytic philosophy" that eventually ends up being used to mean anything made in the states).

The idea that we live in post-modernity or that the movement has real tracking is pretty flimsy and belived by people who haven't read about it too much. That is not to say that post-modernist don't have academic tracking or that the theories under that banner are weak, it's just that when you read "post-modernist" you should just read "academic french approach to the subject". There's obviously going to be contradiction if for propaganda purposes you lump together opposing thinkers or people discussing the same topic, that doesn't make any of them particularly wrong beyond the position you chose to take. I think I mentioned before that a lot of modern texts take elements from both structuralism and post-structuralism and try to find a middle point that works for that author.

I think I'm rambling already, I'm sorry if the post is hard to follow or redundant.

>>5656721
He wrote for a public that would preferred a slow and complete reading than a direct and simplified one. If it's not for you it's not for you, no need to go to the internet and show how much smarter and sincere than important academics you think you are.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 10:43:49 2014 No.5656784

>>5654908
Why do you want to know?

It is pointless. It would be a worthless information. Stop clogging your brain with that garbage.

It is not fun.
It does not benefit you in any way, shape or form.
It does not improve the quality of your life.
It does not give you any important or relevant answers.
It does not give you answers to anything.

Read something you like. Stop bothering with this lowbrow garbage masked under the guise of an intellectual movement.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 12:55:21 2014 No.5657157 >>5656784 Philistine detected.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 12:58:50 2014 No.5657167 >>5654968 Most of these are bullshit terms made by uncultured bourgeois. Just stick to art before 1900 if you want to get into it. In general too, really. >>5654908 Why is anger and grand claims the usual actions of ignorance?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:02:34 2014 No.5657182 >>5657167 >Just stick to art before 1900 if you want to get into it Yeah, ignoring abstract expressionism -- the most important, the most complex and the most discussed art movement of the last 500 years, that's such a great idea.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:05:08 2014 No.5657187 >>5657182 You're getting caught up on CIA propaganda instead of appreciating it as much as the posterior abandon of the classic form limitations.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:07:57 2014 No.5657193 >>5657187 This. Hilarious to see people so up their own asses for -decades- over a litteral government psy-op.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:09:17 2014 No.5657195

>>5657182
>abstract expressionism -- the most important, the most complex and the most discussed art movement of the last 500 years

DAMN

DAMN

DAMN THAT'S RETARDED

DAMN

HOLY SHIT BOY

HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN A HISTORY COURSE?

BAE, HAVE YOU LEARNED ABOUT THE REFORMATION, COUNTERREFORMATION, ENLIGHTENMENT?

YOU THINK PAINT SPLOTCHES FLUNG AROUND BY SOME JEWS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE MUSIC, LIT, AND ART OF THE 1600S?

DAMN BAE
DAMN

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:10:21 2014 No.5657197

>>5657182
>the most important, the most complex
lol

look at me i can le be le great painted :D :D:XD: ::D ill just spill the paint all over the canvas and some other shit thats art :D :D: ))) or ill just draw stupid geometric shapes wow so deeeeeeeeeep!!11

no no wait ill just paint the whole thing blue or red im such mark rothko XDD :)) )D) so important
so complex

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:17:51 2014 No.5657228 >>5657193 It wasn't a government psy-op, it was just co-opted and propagated thanks to the state, which would be perfectly rational in a communist state but pretty hypocritical for a liberal capitalistic government.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:18:53 2014 No.5657235 >>5657197 >if they don't appeal to the most lowest common denominator their work is dumb

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:24:51 2014 No.5657256
File: 51 KB, 700x452, contemporanea-e1362937005988.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5657182
Rothko was a pretentious hack who was only famous because he got lucky to be in the right "movement" at the right time. And he killed himself = misunderstood genius!!!

Jackson Pollock was a fucking lunatic who made some art my 4-year-old cousin probably could have whipped out in 10 minutes. He was an alcoholic, manic-depressant and often and uncontrollable, angry and insecure man. Just like Rothko, he also had celebrity disease.

Barnett Newman too was shit. Wow, the entire canvas is blue and there's a white line! How genius?

Yves Klein was a talentless hack, exploiting the idiosyncrasies of the art market for profit, he is also responsible for the cancer that is performance art today.

People like Young Thug or Chief Keef are the contemporary equivalents of these people. People who only care about money and popularity. To them, the thing they do is nothing more than a means to an end. That end being of course money, they don't create art or voice any individual expression.

Fuck abstract expressionism. Almost any other art movement has people that are passionate about it as an art, you never saw any abstract expressionists (or their fans for that matter) who know anything about art theory or history, let alone appreciation of other movements. Jackson Pollock and Rothko for example always refused to explain the meaning behind their works, or why they named something the way the did. Guess why? Because there is no fucking meaning.

You probably also think Interior Semiotics or these are art:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsTFYtLaGw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit

Please die.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:28:00 2014 No.5657261 File: 879 KB, 800x800, 1407214634343.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5657256 >muh kid could do it

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:28:16 2014 No.5657263 >>5657235 But their work does appeal to the lowest common denominator, the section of the retarded masses that coat themselves with pretention

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:29:32 2014 No.5657265 >>5657256 it's sad that america has nothing except this piece of shit movement

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:31:25 2014 No.5657271 >>5657256 Young Thug makes enjoyable music though. You can't say the same thing about Rothko.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:32:37 2014 No.5657273 >>5657271 >rap >enjoyable it's not even good at being pop.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:33:38 2014 No.5657276
File: 248 KB, 667x560, Barnett-Newman-Onement-Vi-19531.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5657256
Guess what?

Pollock's, Rothko's and Newman's paintings are the most expensive paintings in the world. Seems like you're the one in the wrong, buddy. :-)

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:34:15 2014 No.5657279

>>5657256
I'm attending a very liberal university and for my New York School poetry course we had assigned readings on these fuckers. Newman claimed his red canvas one is supposed to represent the ultimate subilimity of looking at stone henge when the sun is brightest or some shit. I can't stand it. I wish I could go to Oxford or something to escape the hatred of art that is postmodernism

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:34:45 2014 No.5657281 >>5657271 Young Thug is a musical genius, 1017 Thug is a 4.5/5 release.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:35:36 2014 No.5657283 >>5657265 Hudson River School Basically all we do is take what's cool in Europe at any given time and strip thw taste out of it

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:35:46 2014 No.5657284 File: 109 KB, 485x750, ebayofpigs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Is this thread an example of deconstruction of the philosophy/language of art?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:36:09 2014 No.5657286 >>5657256 Morton Feldman is the musical equivalent of Derrida, and abstract expressionism the visual.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:37:36 2014 No.5657293 >/lit/ has no respect for abstract expressionism anymore What happened?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:37:45 2014 No.5657294

>>5657263
There doesn't exist anything like that. The lowest denominator goes for the "mi kid could paint that" because they haven't already seen thousands of complex renaissance works and want to be spoon fed over abused realism but painted last week because they need it to be new too.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:39:24 2014 No.5657300 >>5657294 I don't get it...

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:41:14 2014 No.5657306

>>5657293
>two anons say something
>the same amount of people or more say the opposite
>why are you so shit /lit/?
Also, the same way plebs want to have renaisance paintings done now because new people want to have the same discussion over and over. It gets boring to discuss an art movement with people who don't even try to understand the context or ideas behind it. If I already have to listen people calling Bruce Nauman a hack in class by people who think pop music has historical value I don't really care for "my kid could paint that" shit tier discussion.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:43:18 2014 No.5657312

>>5657293
Gradual de-nihilisming of the board

>>5657294
In terms of culture, the my kid can do it guy is lowest. In terms of how much respect I have for the person as a person, the bourgeois, pseudointellectual black-hole-of-values fucker is deep down in an abyss of gas and shit while the working man is merely below the heights of the aesthete

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:44:38 2014 No.5657313

>>5655310
Try reading a man like Wittgenstein or Merleau-Ponty or Frege. Those guys actually do something. Overly complicated language is not required to express complex ideas. When one reads a work of brilliance they should find themselves lost in the ideas, not the language. Derrida's work is part of a mere cultural trend. Sure he was smart, but he didn't possess the kind of transcendent wisdom that men like Wittgenstein have. 500 years from now, Derrida will be a mere historical footnote, nothing more then the epitome of a fleeting academic program. Wittgenstein on the other hand actually engages the deepest and most timeless issues of human experience: love, ethics, aesthetics, knowledge, math, language, logic etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:46:39 2014 No.5657329 >>5657228 >>5657193 >>5657187 Wow, this is fucking interesting. No one ever taught me that CIA was behind this, were they also behind pop art? I have to read more about it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:48:06 2014 No.5657331 >>5657329 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:48:48 2014 No.5657332

>>5657300
There is no boogieman pretentious people going around forcing their shitty art on you. There are college kids trying to understand and speaking more than they should (the same thing you'd find in everything from arts to stem) and people making money through abusing a flawed system (laundering through the art world). As something outside of it there is no point in worrying about that people since you'll never have to interact with them, and people who do just ignore them.

Saying "my kid could paint that" is trying to appeal to technical dificulty as a means to prove value, but most art students come out of college with more than enough technique to replicate any classical painting, I remember having to wait for certain paintings in el prado because there were more than a dozen kids imitating Velazquez. Anyone can paint anything if they have a middle class income and enough free time. The point in aleatory works like Pollocks wasn't the production itself but the choice between his works (he made thousands of those and got read of mosts) and the posterior experience of finding meaning in them. It's about the people, not the mechanic means. A little kid could do the same, or could do a Monnet or whatever the fuck he wanted, he wouldn't be making the original statement behind that work.
The same with structuralist and minimalist works. The idea and the experience in the spectator is the deal there, not how it was done.

>>5657329
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
It wasn't that they invented it as much as heavily promoted it through the world. The URSS did pretty much the same with their stuff, but it's pretty heavy interventionism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:49:37 2014 No.5657334 It's not that hard to get it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2I4oxEC3vU Brice Marden explains some of it pretty well, and it's only 3 minutes long.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:50:39 2014 No.5657339 >>5657312 >>5657294 What do people have against the "my kid could do it" argument?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:51:11 2014 No.5657340 >>5657339 read >>5657332

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:51:40 2014 No.5657341 Where do DFW and Pynchon fit into all of this? Are their works related to structuralism?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:53:08 2014 No.5657348 >>5657341 All literature is related since structuralism and it's post thing are methods to analyzing all literature (among other things like language or communication). But they aren't fully focused in exploring it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:58:05 2014 No.5657364

>>5657256
There is no beauty in Rothko, Malevich or Pollock.

But what they were doing were not expressions as much as experiments.

They can be likened to these fields:

Rothko = psychology, how can I express emotions through color alone? Dude was depressed as fuck.

Malevich = metaphysics: what is art? What are the basic components of art? Art is dead, it's nothing but paint on a canvas.

Pollock = theoretical physicist: there is much more to art than just flat depictions, by using mediums in certain ways, we can depict other aspects of art, like dance and movements through the thick and thin of paint drips.
His paintings were a way for him to express his "raw emotion" by splashing paint on a canvas. There is a degree of thought and symbolism, they say you can see fractals in almost all Pollock's paintings. http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock

These guys are often placed under the same rubric as traditional artists, which doesn't work and all you get is "wow they made shitty LOOKING art."

The point was never to appeal visually.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 13:59:59 2014 No.5657369

>>5657279
>I prefer to let the paintings speak for themselves.

I guess then that he painted over and over and only portraits of a young Helen Keller. Utter non-sense but that is what the art world wanted to achieve back then so I guess you achieved your goals Barry.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 14:01:07 2014 No.5657372 >>5657334 This is one of the worst videos I've ever seen. He isn't saying anything. To think someone would dedicate their life to formalism in painting is either brainwashed by Clement Greenberg, or, worse, their art history 200 professor.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 14:02:50 2014 No.5657378 >>5657334 >this guy laughingsluts.jpg

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 14:29:30 2014 No.5657456 >>5657256 >People like Chief Keef are the contemporary equivalents of these people >dissing Sosa He's the true Ubermensch.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 14:44:32 2014 No.5657515

>>5654908
It is related to philosophy, and therefore also with sociology, psychology and literature and culture in general

Post-structuralists typically took the ideas of Heidegger and Nietzsche and applied them to modern western society. It is essentially nihilistic: people with subjective values rise to power and define symbols e.g. words world-views ideas etc and we're all just saps living in a shallow depthless hell

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 14:51:18 2014 No.5657559

>>5657364
How are explorations into psychology and metaphysics not aprt of art? That could be considered everything art is.
What you said about Pollock is sort of okay but it's no physics, it's art through action and movement instead of brushing or whatever. It's as valid as anything else.

>>5657372
>>5657378
Don't be mean, he's clearly drunk and he's not even sure how he got there. He didn't even take off his hat.

>>5657515
No, don't force the philosophy you know to everything that came after them. They are influenced but they aren't taking their theories.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 15:47:36 2014 No.5657834

And it's pretty interesting that even with all the teleological discourse of "the young people are the avant garde" this kind of threads get stuck in XVIIIth century discussion about the universality of beauty instead of the way space is explored and media combines and how perception and experience mark the work.
meanwhile 60 year olds are still the ones proposing new visions and stuff.

Something a bit more modern than 50's structuralism, this is Jim Campbell mixing sculpture and cinema, he also has a nice Faulkner backstory: after graduating as an engineer from MIT he got a job fixing TVs, while on the side slowly designing his artistic pieces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-fNalstA2k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmb918aNTcA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NgSyE3--jM

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 15:53:52 2014 No.5657855

>>5657515
To clean up your post a bit: they made Heidegger and Nietzsche /into/ nihilists by taking their devaluation and dismissing their additions. It is simply credulity to metaphysics with nothing else. The pomos were basically a step back from the highs of Heidegger and Nietzsche into a more categorized, systematized rejection of metaphysics which resulted in the nihilism N and Heidi worked to escape.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 15:54:55 2014 No.5657859 File: 607 KB, 1024x1372, The Creation of Light.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5657855 incredulity*

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 16:04:50 2014 No.5657919

>>5657339
"Muh kid could" implies an importance to skill and craftsmanship when it is in fact irrelevant.

If technical ability were the measure of art, there'd be no point in making it anymore when you could print a Vermeer instead.

Not that this exonerates abstract expressionism, but if it is shit it's not because "muh kid".

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 16:05:42 2014 No.5657924

The truth is that post structuralism is a till used by communist intellectuals to subvert and usurp traditional western values (individualism, private property, natural rights, the family, christianity, and other forms of cultural identity) and key word here- to ultimately deconstruct reality. Once our view of reality is destroyed by endless skepsis (I quills call neo sophists) it can pave the way for cultural marxism, or egalitarian authoritarianism. Communism essentially. That is the fate of the western world assuming a reactionary movement doesn't stop it in its tracks.

Inb4 ten million devastated marxist apologists tell me to go back to /pol/ without actually making any arguments.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 16:48:35 2014 No.5658130 >>5654908 Is this post satire? Are you really this retarded or are you just pretending to be? Your post is like walking into a discussion about mathematics and asking what the fuck an equation is.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 16:55:17 2014 No.5658148

>>5657919
Art implies humanity you fucking dunce. Technical ability is a specifically human characteristic. You can't call something technical without specific style.
The hackery of abstract expressionism is revealed in "muh kid could do it" just because it isn't complicated and realistic, it's because there is absolutely nothing about the human spirit that has anything to do with splattering paint on canvas. Picasso was unrealistic and even simple (that is, in comparison to renaissance artwork) but that has nothing to do with his genius and I recognize it completely. There's something specific to him - something that he expresses in a way nobody else possibly could.
Great art can only be made by a genius human. Skill and craftsmanship are everything. You're just conflating skill and craftmanship with realistic detail when they have next to nothing to do with each other.
If my kid could make it or if an advanced computer could make it, it's equally shit. This death of the artist horseshit misses the connection between the observer and artist completely. Art is a medium for their relationship.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:00:18 2014 No.5658162

>>5655104
Why is "you're just mad you didn't get him" the go-to defense of a shit writer / philosopher? There's nothing to "get" with Derrida, or Deleuze and Guattari, or Lacan etc., except that they were self-aware charlatans purposely writing inane flowery bullshit as a joke, a sort of critique on the endeavour of philosophy in general. The only ones who don't seem to be in on the joke are the band of retarded sycophants and fanboys that congregate at the feet of every well-known continental philospher, and who get into a hissy fit whenever you point out that people like Derrida and Deleuze / Guattari never intended their work to be taken literally or even seriously. Derrida would laugh in your face if he saw you now.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:02:05 2014 No.5658171

>>5657332
>any college graduate has enough technique to replicate the classics

True, technique is not the defining issue. Most college graduates could replicate, but never create classic paintings, or anything similar.

Classical musician here. In six years of arduous study most violinists can play some of the most difficult piece. However, none of them, when they sit down and compose, can come up with anything remotely as good. It's not about replication/execution, it's about creation.

Back to painting, most graduates would not be able to do an "original Velazquez" because they would not be able to pick the colors, work out the composition of the scene, etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:04:28 2014 No.5658178 >>5654908 It was huge in Uni since the 80s. I'm hoping nobody accepted your premise that there is a "sudden obsession" with it, but I'm not reading what is sure to be a rehash of previously awful threads.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:07:40 2014 No.5658193

>>5655097
>You know that this is something people go to college to study and devote as much time as a STEM or something, right?

Why do people say this as if it requires some kind of consideration? People also spend an inordinate amount of time, money, and resources studying theology and apologetics. Doesn't mean it's not a useless field.

Congratulations, Zizek has an expert "understanding" of Lacan and Hegel. Am I supposed to be impressed by this? Impressed that someone wasted their entire lives reading the hogwash of a single writer when they could have written something somewhat original and be studied in turn?

Why is an understanding of Lacan essential? When did a froggy semiotician become the last word on anything?

Philosophy / the humanities are at best a hobby and at worst a joke, and it's always hilarious to see some philo major get uppity and indignant when someone tells him he's a waste of air. Saying people dedicate their lives to the study of the writings of charlatans as if it is any way similar to the work and study of STEM careerists is too funny.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:27:33 2014 No.5658296 >>5654908 as for the >on 4chan part: it's because of /lit/'s memebook Infinite Jest. Seriously, that's all there is to it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:37:53 2014 No.5658347 Its come to a point, in modernism, where its just artists and art critics circle-jerking and intellectually patting each other on the back

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:39:31 2014 No.5658362 >>5654908 This post is fucking hilarious, especially with that picture of Derrida, his expression and everything...

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:41:32 2014 No.5658373

>>5654908
I'll give you a brief literary guide to understanding structuralism and post-structuralism. Although they are complex schools of though in philosophy, sociology, psychology, literature, you don't need all that shit to grasp an understanding of them, because everything boils down to the function of language.

In very basic terms, structuralism is the understanding that everything we do that is specifically human is expressed in language. It's the idea that language symbols and codes extend far beyond written and oral communication.

Post-structuralism (post-modern or deconstructionism) thought maintains that structuralist systems are merely fictitious constructs and that they cannot be trusted to develop meaning or to give order. It's the idea that seeking singular truth is absurd because there exists no unified truth - there are many truths, that frameworks must bleed, and that structures must become unstable or decentered. Essentially language can never fully explain or communicate because there is no universal structured framework for it.

You can consider them the two most important schools of thought in the last century and half because you use them everyday

Basic examples
>Structuralism
>You see a traffic light and it shines red. People stop their cars because it's a structural language code that people understand: red light means stop.

>Post-structuralism
>You watch an episode of the Colbert Report. It's a Bill O'Reilly inspired American conservative talk show that satirizes Bill O'Reilly's American conservative talk show.

Since the commercialization of the internet, post-structuralist theory is more prevalent. You see it everyday, because the speed of the internet rapidly deconstructs language.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:43:11 2014 No.5658381 >>5658296 How the hell is Infinite Jest related to structuralism?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:44:15 2014 No.5658384

>>5655211
>This lack of opposition of a meaninful nature allows this form of thought to spread.
That's because there is nothing meaningful to say against them, they're just shit. If you don't understand why shit is shit, it can't be explained to you. You're either a functional human being or a soulless NWO automaton.

The opposition to those schools of thought are the schools of thought that came BEFORE them. There isn't anything that's supposed to come after them. If you want opposition, read fucking Dostoyevsky.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:54:55 2014 No.5658424 >>5655004 >he was never able to describe what the fuck he was actually talking about Haha, if you're a troll that was a 9/10.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:07:22 2014 No.5658489 >>5658384 What the fuck? Isn't deconstructionism something that comes after post-structuralism? That's opposition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:22:09 2014 No.5658553 >>5654971 >it's pretty much the first serious method to (among many things) analyse literature what is russian formalism

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:24:04 2014 No.5658561 So basically, Post-structuralism equals Death of the Author?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:28:00 2014 No.5658578

I hate the whole movement. If you’re not familiar, post-structuralism is one of those newfangled literary/philosophical movements which defies explanation.

In fact, to attempt to explain it in simple terms would insult the very ideas it represents. Therefore:

Post-structuralism basically holds that any analysis of meaning should be conducted from the point of view of the reader (or listener or viewer or what-have-you), rather than the author. In essence, they’re arguing that discussions about an author’s intended meaning are pointless, since we’ll never really know what any author actually wants to communicate.

Oh, there’s more than that: whole books about the deconstruction of texts and meaning, but I’d say that right there is the CORE of post-structuralism. Yes indeed, that’s generally what the term MEANS.

I could rant for a while about inherent problems with this framework, how it neglects the possibility of skeptical doubt regarding an author’s intent, leaping instead to a sort of linguistic nihilism… but that’s not really what I want to do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:33:11 2014 No.5658602 >>5657313 Only time will tell. But if Wittgenstein doesn't stand put as one of the greatest philosophers of all time, I don't know what.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:49:42 2014 No.5658681 >>5656485 >Also, even though structuralism at first tried to be as scientific as possible that doesn't mean it really tried to be a science. How about Prague structuralism and russian formalism?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:53:46 2014 No.5658694

>>5657261
muh kid could do it though, that's the point

however this doesn't mean it technically isn't "art"

people who go off on rants about how a canvas with paint splashed over it or the films of michael bay or the music of lil wayne isn't "art" are just as bad as the people who only consume that type of art to the exclusion of everything else

it certainly is art, regardless of what some pretentious teenager (who just discovered who resnais is and thus decides to shit on michael bay to show how patrician he is) thinks

that doesn't mean it's necessarily good art however

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:58:09 2014 No.5658720

>>5658578
It sounds like you've read about the new critics.

That is just one part of post-structuralism, and it wasn't as bastant as with other movements - in post-structuralism the intention of the author is secondary to the interpretation by the reader, but not thoroughly irrelevant. And opposition to the historical-biographic method and notions of the author had been common for many decades when post-structuralism became a thing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:59:46 2014 No.5658731 Just trying to read the Wikipedia article of the shit Foucault wrote about confuses me. What happened to philosophing about important things like love, life, destiny or whatever.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:59:59 2014 No.5658732

>>5658148
As I mentioned before, kids come out of art school being perfectly able to mimic renaisance style, many guys at /ic/ can just learning from tutorials and hiring their own models. Technique is just something mechanically learned, like sport players throwing balls that could kill you, there's no value in the product just for how it was made.
I'm pretty sure you haven't seen any Pollock live or you wouldn't be assuming that it's just random work.

>>5658162
Two things
>why is it the go to
Because that reads as someone clearly mad throwing buzzwords around. If you change the topic and keep the style he would still be pretty mad.
>second
>they were self-aware charlatans
No they weren't, there's a lot to take from their work and it has been exploited and developed since then. I'm not sure what you mean as taking their works literal, but if you think people irl dedicated their lives to doing things ironically you are a pretty depressing cynic.

>>5658171
It's still not that different. Anyone could copy the style and make a sort of new variation, but it would sound forced and it would be a meaningless process, either a painting or a musical composition. I remember violinist friends improvising with a certain style and pretending to be playing some memorized piece, sort of playing to see how much they could improvise without accidentally falling in some actually learned loop

>>5658193
Could you please make your point a bit more explicit. I'm not understanding what is wrong with using a certain author as basis for an extended study or why doing that is less valuable than being the ceo of a company.
People, luckily, can do whatever they want and in some cases live off that. Why is this something that makes you feel that way?

>>5658362
He looks a bit like Columbo.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 19:01:01 2014 No.5658738 >>5658384 >If you dont understand why shit is shit, it can't be explained to you. why do you waste yout finger tips typing if you're gonna just say that you can't explain yourself?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 19:02:44 2014 No.5658747 >>5658720 >but not thoroughly irrelevant ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 19:11:25 2014 No.5658788 >>5658731 Do you not count politics,the self, knowledge, and desire among those things? Because he writes on those subjects quite a bit

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 19:15:08 2014 No.5658807

>>5658489
>answering someone who says that if you don't agree you're wrong and it can't be explained.
Anyway, deconstruction is a pretty basic part of post-structuralism since it's a way to go beyond the genre and style structures, which are in turn a pretty big part of classic structuralism.

>>5658553
I tend to forget it since it just eventually became structuralism, but it's a correction pretty valid and you could had done more than just name dropping it, like expressing a point or comparing them giving context.

>>5658681
It was in vogue to use the term science that way, taking it at face value is disingenuous. They tried to be as scientific in their approach as possible in their subject matter.

It also goes to you that just saying "what about X" is the most lazy and boring way to be part of a conversation. Why even bother?

>>5658561
No, it includes ideas that can be dumbed down to DotA and then confused with context not mattering at all by teens in the internet.

>>5658578
>newfangled
It's not too new.

>>5658747
Yeah, that.
Only some extremists take it completely to the spectator roll and they do it knowing that other critics will still analyze the context.
No one in art critic wants everyone else to do the same thing they are doing, that has never been the point.

>>5658694
I still defend the Frankfurt idea that art needs to be done to be art. A movie made to make money is a product, something made to convince you of a point is propaganda, art needs to be created with the intention of being art. Otherwise there is no point in having the word.
You're presenting an argument as weak as the teen who just discovered good stuff since you're just ignoring everything that happened in the art world around that argumentation. You are worse than someone thinking that classic keynesianism is gonna fix something.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 19:16:10 2014 No.5658814 >>5658731 You should just read Foucault like a big boy, he's one of the easiest to get philosophers in the last 200 years. Don't blame him for the two page synopsis of multiple books being too confusing.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 20:06:54 2014 No.5659054

>>5658807
>I tend to forget it since it just eventually became structuralism, but it's a correction pretty valid and you could had done more than just name dropping it, like expressing a point or comparing them giving context.

>It was in vogue to use the term science that way, taking it at face value is disingenuous. They tried to be as scientific in their approach as possible in their subject matter.

>It also goes to you that just saying "what about X" is the most lazy and boring way to be part of a conversation. Why even bother?

Sorry, what I wanted was for someone else to take up the debate. I am far from an expert in the field. I am currently writing about russian formalism in a historical context, and while I've studied what came before russian formalism pretty intently I still have a lot of reading to do about Prague Structuralism and on.

Russian formalism really wanted to make a science out of it though, even back in the russian symbolist milieu people like Belyj and Brjusov called for a 'scientific approach' to literature and literariness, and talked about the literary devices, the history of literature in a more mechanistic sense - the development of literary devices and their uses and so on. Belyj studied different meters intently, and spent a fair amount of time dabbling in empiricism and statistics.

When the futurists came along they called for an even stronger scientific focus towards literature criticism, eg. with the focus on the word in itself and the battlecry of 'form is all'. Russian formalists picked up on this (as the futurists wasn't the greatest theorizers). So the futurists at least had a scientific approach. Would you say that it couldn't be called actual science, or...?

I don't really know enough about the Prague group yet, did they have a different attitude towards this?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 20:09:47 2014 No.5659066 >>5659054 Also, didn't the Prague group actually 'invent' structuralism, before it spread to France? Or did structuralism develop in France autonomously during the same period?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 20:12:38 2014 No.5659082 >>5657182 Abstract Expressionism is cool and all, but not even the most discussed art movement of the last 50 years.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 20:23:18 2014 No.5659135 Where should I start with Claude Lévi-Strauss, Lacan and Derrida?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 20:25:23 2014 No.5659149

>>5659054
But there's no need to expect someone who knows better, you know more than me and I enjoyed reading your post, way better than most of the thread.

I still feel that there's a big step between what was undesrtood as being a science during the peak of positivism and what we think know.

>>5659066
Invent is a harsh word, formalists never liked the term so it probably was more of a natural passage from one thing to the other. But it did appear first in Czechoslovak, you're completely right.

>>5659082
Land art dominates quite a few books from the last 30 years.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 20:41:13 2014 No.5659222

>>5659149
Still reading through the thread. Was fun to find a thread on structuralism when that's what I'm writing about and part of the curriculum. I'm reading through the posts and looking stuff up, which is a fun way to learn.

>Invent is a harsh word
hence 'invent', but yeah. I guess I need to figure out how the french developed it further.

>Land art dominates quite a few books from the last 30 years.
I still think minimalism/post-minimalism and conceptual art (appeared with Duchamp, but wasn't really a movement until the mid-60s) are the most discussed though. At least as far as I feel it, and I am 'part' of the art world, have studied at an art school etc., there's still a very strong conceptual current and interest in intellectual explanation. There is enough to read up on when it comes to abstract expressionism, but in its nature it is expressionism. Minimalism and conceptualism is much more theoretical.

I guess there are two currents though, one that has much more to do with expressionism, process-art, etc. Which is where 'trash art' comes from, for instance. Some schools side with one faction, some with the other, in a way.

Land art was part of post-minimalism from the beginning also. It has taken on a pretty 'commercial' approach, eg. with Olafur Eliasson. these overblown works that appeals easily. but it's not the most discussed I think.

Personally I think Fluxus is the most interesting movement of the last 50 years, but it is still waiting for an upsurge in popularity. even though some of the artists are widely known, there isn't much attention to the movement as a whole it seems.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 21:20:27 2014 No.5659384

>>5659135
Claude Levi Strauss - Mythologies
Derrida - The Truth in Painting
Don't bother with Lacan.

The most challenging book I've read is most undoubtedly The Truth in Painting by Jacques Derrida.

Given Derrida's engagement with Levinasian ethics, it's extremely stupefying the way deconstruction gets explained as "interpreting the text in any way you want." Fucking idiots, thinking that their wikipedia research constitutes authentic knowledge of a tradition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 21:28:15 2014 No.5659441 >>5659384 >The most challenging book Ive read is most undoubtedly The Truth in Painting by Jacques Derrida. Then why do you recommend someone starts with it?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 21:29:00 2014 No.5659452

>>5659384
>Don't bother with Derrida*

I haven't read any Derrida, but I remember seeing this on the Wiki for "close reading":

Jacques Derrida's essay Ulysses Gramophone, which J. Hillis Miller describes as a "hyperbolic, extravagant... explosion" of the technique of close reading, devotes more than eighty pages to an interpretation of the word "yes" in James Joyce's modernist novel Ulysses[citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_reading

Citation needed, but still... it wouldn't surprise me - he's supposed to be crazily obfuscatory.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 21:32:50 2014 No.5659471

>>5659452
>I seem to remember
>from wiki
>something that doesn't really say anything besides that he talks a lot about a single element
>citation needed
>he's supposed to be crazily obfuscatory
He writes for a small audience, yes, but there was no real point in anything you said.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 21:43:43 2014 No.5659537 >>5655253 I don't think anyone genuinely enjoys this. Everyone who says they loved it is only pretending.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 21:44:46 2014 No.5659541 >>5659441 It's worth it in the end.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 21:48:44 2014 No.5659558 >>5655253 Is this something that works only with drugs?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 21:51:32 2014 No.5659576

>>5659537
I was the only one answering and I enjoyed it, it was like a painting. I did pay way more attention after the 10 mins mark and checked the timeline to see more or less where it was going.
Why is it weirder that somebody would like that that people finding diapers and shit arousing? Why when it's sexual is kosher and when it's artistic is pretending?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 21:52:34 2014 No.5659584 >>5659558 It works with being really mellow, it's like sensory deprivation. If drugs help you with that sure, I get kind of restless when stoned.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 22:10:37 2014 No.5659651

>>5658807
>I still defend the Frankfurt idea that art needs to be done to be art. A movie made to make money is a product, something made to convince you of a point is propaganda, art needs to be created with the intention of being art. Otherwise there is no point in having the word.

You are now required to derive an objective system of determining artist intent. I'll be waiting.

>You're presenting an argument as weak as the teen who just discovered good stuff since you're just ignoring everything that happened in the art world around that argumentation. You are worse than someone thinking that classic keynesianism is gonna fix something.

The only weak argument being made here is yours, I.E. that you can in any way, shape, or form discern the intent of any artist beyond mere speculation and thus define his or her work as art or not art.

>hurr durr if it was made for money it's not art

Not only is this ignoring an enormous portion of all art ever created, it's an asinine argument in and of itself because it assumes that 1) you can discern intent and 2) something can't be artful because it was made with profit in mind.

You sound like the teenager in my example. Hopefully you'll grow out of this faux elitism soon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 22:12:52 2014 No.5659661 I have no idea what is going on in this thread anymore. Too confusing and complex for me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 22:27:32 2014 No.5659736 >>5659651 You could only sound more pity if you had added a "check mate" at the end. If you want to show off please define what you take for art, that should ahd been your first post if you want to express something.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 22:32:37 2014 No.5659766 >>5659736 >You could only sound more pity what

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 22:34:58 2014 No.5659781

>>5659766
You're desperately "rebutting" without saying anything yourself. What would you define as art if anything done "artfully" aplies and what would be the point of the word if anything mass produced with aesthetic value (which, if you you chose to consider should be defined too) is art. What isn't art in that case.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 22:41:02 2014 No.5659808 >>5655142 I would've said, "You also don't know biology." You gotta stay on that shit and get your balls back. Just don't be like Costanza and drop the comeback way too late.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 22:44:00 2014 No.5659817

>>5659781
Okay I'm not even sure if English is your first language but I'll try to respond to this regardless.

>You're desperately "rebutting" without saying anything yourself. What would you define as art if anything done "artfully" aplies

That is the definition you fucking faggot. If something is done "artfully" that implies that the object being done in a manner that can be described as"artfully" is art.

>what would be the point of the word if anything mass produced with aesthetic value (which, if you you chose to consider should be defined too) is art. What isn't art in that case.

Why is "mass produced" and "artistic" mutually exclusive to you?

Does it have aesthetic value? If so, then it's art. It might be shit art, but it's art nonetheless. I'm tired of faux pretentious teenagers using the distinction between "art" and "not art" to make themselves feel better about their entry level taste.

You're not the Grand Pooh-Bah Arbiter of what is and isn't art. Art is an amazingly broad field that could encompass pretty much anything man-made that has aesthetic value. That being said, you are free to define art however you wish, but just know that your strict and shallow distinction between what you consider art and not art is fucking retarded and I hope you're not older than 18.

I'm not sure what better way to show you how moronic you sound. You are like a teen who smugly declares that hip hop "isn't music". Of course it's music, you're just an insecure pedant with a chip on his shoulder. It's perfectly fine to subjectivel differentiate between good art and bad art, but it's still fucking art. Saying something mass-produced "isn't art" is just a way for you to simultaneously dismiss anything you don't like while making you feel good about yourself.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 22:56:30 2014 No.5659859

>>5659817
You realize that more than half of what you wrote is insulting me without actually saying anything?

If anything done artfully is art, you'd say that taking a picture is art but the picture itself isn't because it isn't actually made artfully but mechanically by an object?
Also, "it was done artfully" implies that you'd know how it was made, and you got all mad about me saying that the intention the creator had factors in.

You are not only forcing your interpretation of art, but you aren't presenting any critical thinking about why it should be that way. If anything you are demanding that the word loses any use.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:02:14 2014 No.5659884 >>5659817 >>5659859 Wait, wait... You two are still arguing over the "muh kid could do it" thing? Is that how it all started? It's been like 10 hours since then, guys.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:04:37 2014 No.5659894 >>5659884 Not at all. One guy says that everything is art and anyone saying that you can make a certain criteria to differentiate art is a teen who just discovered good films, like Hume, Kant, Hegel, Benjamin, Adorno, Gadamer, etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:06:17 2014 No.5659901 >>5659894 i never read any of those people, i feel ashamed

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:07:38 2014 No.5659908

>>5659859
>ur not actually saying anything!
>ur not using critical thinking!
>ur forcing ur interpretation of art!

Simply repeating this does not make it true. Ruminate for a while on your definition of art and eventually you might see why it's pseudo-intellectual and naive.

>If anything you are demanding that the word loses any use

The word certainly does have a specific use and I can assure you you're not using it correctly. Sorry, but "art" is not a term that exists so you can differentiate between things you personally like or don't like.

>>5659894
Funny, I'm still waiting for you do lay out your rigorous method for discerning artist intent, something you should have done more than 10 posts ago and is central to you're argument.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:08:23 2014 No.5659915
File: 16 KB, 265x400, 15837715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5659452
This should be read first.

I could never read Derrida. Even after studying a few introductory books. Then, I found this biography by B. Peeters. It was time to learn about the man, his life. I was not expecting to learn about deconstruction et al., though, and I didn't. I might not be able to understand Derrida the same way, now that I have closed this excellent book. But now I know why. And it does not matter. I am certain that I will be able to read him differently now. It took me more than a year to finish his biography, with long lapses here and there, because of other projects and constraints. But this is a very clearly written text, which facilitates the return from long pauses. I highly recommend it, specially if you still hope to give Derrida a "chance". It does take time to read him. Possibly, a lifetime. This is, perhaps, his ultimate underlying intention.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:11:28 2014 No.5659926
File: 101 KB, 801x1036, orange-and-yellow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It looks like something a grade schooler would paint, but that's only how it looks! In reality these perfect rectangles symbolize the divinity of God and his creation. This is only something the great Mark Rothko could do!

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:13:46 2014 No.5659936

>>5659908
>Sorry, but "art" is not a term that exists so you can differentiate between things you personally like or dont like.
I was never doing so, I like to go for Hegel's three general characteristics:
>Is an autonomous work
It doesn't requiere the artist or other explanations to generate an impression in the spectator.
>It was constructed with the intention of being art
The artist made that work with the intention of generating a certain impact in the spectator, his intention was an aesthetic one.
>it's recognized as art by peers and institutions
which tends to be what gets people mad but it's such a general thing that it's rarely stopping any artists.

This criteria isn't absolute nor objective, it's open to change with human interpretation and it's clearly tied to the society that it's applying it.

>proving artistic intent
I'd like to know about scenarios where you'd doubt the intent in a work and couldn't find it with some research. It's easier to get a work lost forever than not knowing where it came from at all.

Now, please, explain to me what being artfull and aesthetic means to you.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:15:12 2014 No.5659939

>>5659926
The size of the painting and how they take up most if not all of the viewers sight is very important to his work. And although this next statement can be said about a lot of things: It is vital to see his larger works in person to really 'get' his aesthetics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:15:52 2014 No.5659941 >>5659926 >first CIAs shills aren't really an issue >second Pissing on a well known intention isn't the same as a work having no meaning. >third all that jelly, you could paint your own painting with that!

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:17:25 2014 No.5659951

>>5659936
>I'd like to know about scenarios where you'd doubt the intent in a work and couldn't find it with some research. It's easier to get a work lost forever than not knowing where it came from at all. Now, please, explain to me what being artfull and aesthetic means to you.

That's a fascinating discussion in and of itself and I'd love to go into it with you at length but not before you admit that:

>It was constructed with the intention of being art

is not only a meaningless criteria for art but an impossible one.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:27:44 2014 No.5659972

>>5659951
For example, what piece of work has a dubious origin?
I'm even proposing that it's fairly impossible for a work to have an unknown intention. If it did it would a sociological discovery and not a work of art.

And no, making art for the kind isn't the same that making a product to be sold. The king didn't tell you what to do, a producer does and also chooses the parts that go.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:33:50 2014 No.5660001 >>5659972 So any film that at one point had a producer is categorically not a work of art?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:36:12 2014 No.5660019 Perhaps I'm dumb, but what does post-structuralism have to with art?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:43:05 2014 No.5660050

>>5660001
It depends, did his intervention affect the artistic intent or not? Lynch would consider Dune a meaningless monstrosity while even in Eraserhead he had someone working as producer managing the money. Again, intention is actually much clearer than what you're making it be since it's a contextual interpretation.

>>5660019
It's a means to analyze and search new grounds, like remediation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 23:59:22 2014 No.5660124 File: 97 KB, 1280x960, duchamp_was_here.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5659926 >Thinking a Rothko is supposed to symbolize anything >Not bagging on Duchamp instead

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 00:05:00 2014 No.5660151
File: 114 KB, 800x1099, anna-meyer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5659972
Y'see, the problem with that is then a portrait like this one painted by Holbein for King Henry the VIII just so the King can pick which chick he'd like to bag next is strictly not "art" by your definition.

And that's granting you an "artwork" of rather clear origin.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 00:08:42 2014 No.5660178

>>5660151
Did the king tell him how to paint it?
If so no, it wasn't art, it was an artist doing his best to show off his skill and craftmanship, not his art. You can do a ceramic vase to make a work of art or to drink beer, then you can drink beer out of your work of art if you want.
Still, usually when it came to working for a king the artist was quite free to do his thing, consider Las Meninas by Velazquez where the portrait subject is less tha 10% of the painting.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 00:09:20 2014 No.5660186 What comes after post-structuralism and deconstructionism? More structuralism?

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 00:16:25 2014 No.5660219

>>5660186
Why do you want to get beyond something that's still being expanded and doesn't include every analyst? A lot of people still swear by structuralism and water down their posmo with some modernism. You could still bring new theories and applied them to a post-structuralist framework.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 00:18:00 2014 No.5660231

>>5660178
And still, I'm sure that in most cases it can be known what happened to the artist behind the work. If he was rejected by the king and killed and no one cared it's quite rare that the works would survive; and even in a case like that it can be more or less assumed a certain way how it went by the known context.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 00:21:06 2014 No.5660242

>>5660178
>Did the king tell him how to paint it?
The parameters were pretty strict. I doubt King Henry VIII micromanaged every single detail, but it had to be a portrait of a certain size with a "realistic depiction" (so he didn't get surprised by a big nose) et cetera.

Dunno how you figure Holbein was "showing off his skill and craftsmanship", it was essentially one of many portraits to present to the King as a line-up to determine who he'd fancy and then tossed aside.

"Artistic Intent" is pretty well non-existent here, yet you'd be one of the few I've seen to insist this isn't art.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 00:27:07 2014 No.5660263

>>5660242
>The parameters were pretty strict.
And when you film a movie you had to pay attention to how much film you had, how much light you had, what the actors wanted. I doubt you could make an orchesta piece with violas in a city without anyone who plays the instrument. Every work has limitations.
>how you figure
I don't. I'm saying that if someone asks an artist to make a very precise work and he does it he's doing a precision work and he isn't caring about art. I don't know that particular work nor the artist, I couldn't tell you if about the context of the piece neither.

If he made the work under the idea of "make me look good" and it took precedent over the realism of the piece I would consider a pretty free piece where the artist expressed his interpretation of what the iconic beauty of the land should look like. No one would doubt that has artistic intent.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 00:38:33 2014 No.5660294

>>5660263
>If he made the work under the idea of "make me look good" and it took precedent over the realism

But what I'm saying, is that isn't the case at all. What's needed here is an explanation of what "artistic intent" is, for all I know from your use of it that term can be used as either an indictment of Holbein or a defense of Pollock.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 00:54:39 2014 No.5660357

If you want to get into Derrida, try reading this one: http://projectlamar.com/media/Derrida-Differance.pdf

That's the first Derrida I read. It's rough going—prob read it over 20 times to write a short response paper for an intro to comp lit class in sophomore year six years ago. As has been noted, Derrida is working on top of the entire tradition of western philosophy. To really get anything out of it, you should have at the very least a passing knowledge of pre-socratics, plato, some aristotle (but personally i only find poetics helpful at all in general and not in termd of Derrida's work), and definitely some Heiddiger and Nietzsche. Derrida is all about troubling the binary opposites that he says have structured the way we think and experience the world. These can be: mind/body; man/woman; form/content; nature/culture; inside/outside; writing/speech etc etc etc.
The concept of "differance" (the "a" is intentional btw spellnazis) is crucial to approaching Derrida's thought and that's why I think this is a good introduction into his stuff. Plus it's not super long so you can do what is required by his texts which is: spend time with them! If you start to get a feeling for some of the stuff he is talking about (and i think feeling is right word here because a lot of the concepts he names tend to take on a kind of mystical quality to them (because he names them and then immediately asks you to disregard the act of naming—i.e. 'full' rational understanding is not the point)) in this piece, try moving on to longer stuff with wider directives. But this is definitely a great intro piece to his thought.
The implications of his work and deconstruction are super wide and not—as a lot of people try to say—apolitical or useless. There is a profoundly ethical core running through evertyhing he writes. His later writings on Friendship and Gifts elucidate that a bit more tangibly.
There's also a documentary on him that is a pretty good watch though doesn't do a lot in terms of explaining his thought clearly or anything.

Also don't be a fucking twat and talk abt wanting to be cultured.... reading this shit is hard and time consuming but it will leave you better equipped to deal with the world and other texts—it's exercise for your brain, and a lot lot more than some next shitty cultural capital (u can carry around a zizek book for that :)).

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 00:57:30 2014 No.5660370
File: 41 KB, 713x613, 1414673689749.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Hey there Derrida, what's it like in Hermeneutics?
I've critiqued the semiotic,
deconstructed all aesthetics, obviously.
There is nothing outside the text for me, Yes I see.

Hey there Derrida, lets deflate the logocentric.
words are all there are,
so I'll describe the Phenomenologic, just for you.
Différance blinds but I mean YOU, yes I do.

Oh, it's just semantically
Oh, it's just semantically
just semantically

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 00:58:12 2014 No.5660375 [SPOILER]

File: 363 KB, 754x1000, 1414731492971.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5660294
I keep feeling that you are being dense on purpose but I know it's pretty probably that I'm expressing myself poorly.
By artistic intent I don't mean any metaphysical complex concept, just that when the author did that work his intentions were tied to making that work, that the way he worked was for the good of the piece and not other factors like being part of a market, making a posterior work or creating an utilitarian tool, to name some alternative reasons why you would manufacture something I can think up right now but obviously not the only ones.

And I mentioned it before but it may have been hidden under other lines but any criteria is open to re interpretation by any critic to expand or propose an alternative take.

I really have to go to bed and I won't be in /lit/ tomorrow. Ff this doesn't 404 I'll be happy to continue posting but if it does just wait for the next art thread and we'll continue (if you want, of course)

And I respect Pollock's work. Even if he chose to keep his brush away from the canvas instead of brushing it against it, there was much less randomness in his work that people assume. It's quite impressive seeing his paintings in person.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 01:01:42 2014 No.5660393 >>5660357 I like your post. Do you have in mind any particular Heidegger book or text? Also, being something that starts as text analysis it makes sense that Aristotle's poetics is the main thing from that author.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 01:01:50 2014 No.5660394 >>5660357 I have read quite a lot of Derrida, and his entire body of thought seems to be a rehashing of the exact same arguments Korzybski put forward in General Semantics thirty years before him.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 01:05:36 2014 No.5660406 >>5660394 You can't expand on a subject without touching the topics presented in a more general work. Even the laughable neoplatonism wasn't just a rehashing but also an expansion and reapplication.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 01:26:31 2014 No.5660476 >>5660370 <3

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 01:36:31 2014 No.5660520

>>5660406
>expanded
That's the thing. Korzybski's body of work is so much more thorough than Derrida's. His "deconstruction" of every philosophical school via semantic abstractions goes beyond anything Derrida did. Derrida reads like he picked up a copy of Non-aristotelean systems and general semantics, highlighted a fraction of it and published it in french.

K: "The map is not the territory, all we have are descriptive linguistic maps"
D: "there is nothing outside the text."

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 01:40:27 2014 No.5660538 >>5660520 I'm afraid that the only way this discussion could go is a dick meassuring contest, I'll check Korzybski. Do you have recommendations? How hard to find is he?

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 01:49:32 2014 No.5660571

>>5660538
Korzybski only has one book worth reading, Science and Sanity: Non-Aristotelian systems and General Semantics. (So called because he starts by ripping apart essentialism, because the "Chair-ness" is not an inherent property but a linguistic tag like everything else.) It is a very big, very dense book, though, and Korzybski loved his models and diagrams. You can find a disgustingly brief overview here:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/228604/general-semantics

The wiki page is a little more expanded, but it's like trying to understand Kant from wiki.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 01:55:38 2014 No.5660588

>>5660571
>but its like trying to understand Kant from wiki.
Yeah.
Any chance of a digital copy? How good are libraries with him? (my closest one has only one book from Barthes, so I'm already assuming I'll have to search around a bit for that stuff)
But if he's a fairly obscure author you shouldn't get that mad about people caring about the one who got more attention, it's the same with Nietzche and Stirner (in terms of attention and recognition with sort of similar topics, there are many obvious factors that helped one and rejected the other)

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 02:01:44 2014 No.5660620

so-called 'post-structuralism' is a reaction to philosophy. it is usually studied in the same way we study Philosophy, but for structuralists, philosophy is precisely the probably--as Heidegger says, we must unforget Being (we must stop philosophizing, and learn to think).

VERY generally speaking, post-structuralism refers to those thinkers who deny a structural (i.e., non-sausserian) theory of language, usually hermeneutical.

see: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. but honestly, if you are asking this question u gotta read SO MUCH SHIT.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 02:20:23 2014 No.5660700
File: 49 KB, 460x723, The Map and the Territory.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5660588
>But if he's a fairly obscure author
Hes' not really.

Michel Houellebecq names pic related after him. William S. Burroughs attended General Semantic speeches and wrote about him, as did Robert A Heinlein. If you look at the contemporary people who raved about him you'll find everyone from Arthur C. Clarke and Neil Gaiman to Buckminster Fuller and Allen Watts. His influence is felt even more so outside of the arts.

>Any chance of a digital copy?
http://en.bookfi.org/book/685936
http://en.bookfi.org/book/685936

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 02:24:31 2014 No.5660706 >>5660700 also he isn't at all a part of the continentalist... he's a joke. not a philosophy in any sense. read derrida and foucault, stop whining, if u don't get it u aren't working hard enough.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 02:28:14 2014 No.5660718 >>5660700 >almost download it twice If you're not really devoting yourself to a career in the field there's nothing wrong with strolling a bit around and checking other aproaches.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 02:40:50 2014 No.5660743

>>5660706
>also he isn't at all a part of the continentalist...
No, he approached "deconstruction" via a critique of Wittgenstein.

>he's a joke.
Any reason for your opinion? I'd seriously like to hear it. Other than he feels too "STEM" so treads on the cherished philosophy Vs. Science crusade. The reason most people knee-jerk is because he gave seminars and workshops, so they think he isn't worthy of praise. He followed on from his deconstructionist philosophy and reasoned that "If the text is all there is, and two people hold very different semantics models to describe reality, then how far can one push these models?" At a very basic level, this means someone can hold the view, "Beethoven is bad/ I don't like Beethoven "BOOO" to Beethoven, etc," but this view is semantic, and based on linguistic programing rather than a piece of music, which itself is void of aesthetic 'goods/bads'. He reasoned that it is possible to take someone who voices "Beethoven is bad" as a linguistic opinion, feed them various other semantic models, and get them to voice "Beethoven is good."

Again, this is the most basic level. As you well know, he is famous for "the map is not the territory," yet he took the idea of changing the 'maps' people hold, these subjective texts about reality, and subsequently changing statements made about the territory as far as he could with some very interesting results.

>not a philosophy
Is this the joke? If you remove his 'workshops', you will find one of the most reasonable philosophy systems ever conceived.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 02:43:38 2014 No.5660750

>>5660706
>read derrida and foucault, stop whining, if u don't get it u aren't working hard enough.
The argument was that Derrida is a simplified Korzybski, as everything Derrida said can be found in the more complex works of Korzybski, who was published a good 30-40 years before.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 02:58:35 2014 No.5660770 >>5660700 Pretty interesting, I hadn't heard of him before today. Thanks for this, I'll give Korzybski a read.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 09:06:46 2014 No.5661487

>>5660375
psh, what you are talking about is 'artfulness'. we make a lot of distinguishing based on that concept, from 'art pop' to 'pop' and so on, but in itself it is a hopelessly outdated thought that a work with less artfulness shouldn't be regarded as art as well.

The definition nowadays is pretty much, if an artist says something is art, then it is art (or if an artist says something is music it is music, film it is film, etc.). You can pick up a piece of wood and call it film and the spectators will have to view it as film (so goes the thinking). It is the very act of definition that makes us view something as art - or preconceived notions based on definitions.

Personally I feel that is a bit of a narrow though. Personally I feel that what is art and not appears in the dialog between artist and audience. If someone looks on a pinetree and says 'that is art for me', then that is art for that person. If someone looks at Duchamp's Fountain and thinks 'what a fucking hack, this isn't art' then that isn't art for that person. It is two-sided and largely subjective. But the things that are considered art by consensus are the art objects that are considered art by the artist, and viewed as art by its spectators.

You might come upon a rock with a yellow dot in the middle of a forest and think it is just another rock, but that appears to be a thought-through art piece with artistic intent and ambition. For the spectator that rock becomes art when he accepts that it is. If the spectators of the piece of rock presented as film refuses to view it as film they may still think it is art. In cases like these the consensus may actually trumph the artist's intention.

Hmm, I had one more point that I forgot. I'll reply again if I can recall it later.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 09:36:12 2014 No.5661558 >>5660620 >if you are asking this question u gotta read SO MUCH SHIT Can someone list all the things I should read in order to understand structuralism and post-structuralism?

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 10:32:22 2014 No.5661750

So, in order to get structuralism and post-structuralism you need to have read:

Plato
Aristotle
Locke
Beckett
Hume
Hegel
Kant
Russell
Schopenhauer
Stirner
Nietzsche
Heidegger
Lacan
Foucault
Barthes
Deluze
Derrida

I simply can't believe that everyone who discusses these terms on /lit/ is familiar with all of these authors and their works.

I didn't know we have such knowledgeable people on /lit/.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 11:08:47 2014 No.5661830
File: 169 KB, 600x900, 0d9122902d2f37d4ccafcc2307d391a1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5661487
>artfulness
The other anon was using the term to describe some inherent essence he couldn't describe, I asked him a couple of time to define what artfull meant to him since it fails to work with mechanic constructions.

>if an artist says is art it's art
Not really, that's your general knee jerk post 50's rejection of institutions speaking, it doesn't work like that. If no one recognizes your work you might as well had stayed home.

>dialogue artist/audience
Well, you are moving towards the beginning of post-structuralism, congratulations. The idea of the full circuit being key to the artistic experience appears first in the Frankfurt school but it took a few decades for the reception to have a higher value than the artist or the work. That's the thinking behind a lot of Rotko and that stuff, it doesn't matter the complexity of the work or stuff like that, if it generates awe then it succeeded (and let me tell you that those huge things Pollock did really got you)

But you are paying a lot of attention to the general public, and that's fine, but in some cases it diminishes more complex stuff. To put a /lit/ example is like people reading lolita and saying that it was a story about a pedophile who was really mad, a lot of people fail to connect with Nabokov's prose, but the specialized public appreciates it. You can't assume that the popular consensus is the only thing that matters or you'll never have works that progress beyond the surface level.
It's sort of the problem with modern philosophers like Derrida (and the ones that appeared the 30 years after him aren't much different), you need a lot of background to understand them and people say they are obscurantists on porpoise, but it's the only way to move ahead of certain topics.

>>5661750
Don't be like that!
You know that list includes many authors that don't really matter to make it look harder.
>Plato
>Aristotle
>Hume
Most people read them in HS, only a small part of their works matter in this case and compared with posterior people they are perfect to be read as a brake.

>Locke
>Beckett
>Russell
I'm not saying don't read them, but they aren't vital.

>Stirner
lol

>Lacan
>Foucault
>Deluze
>Derrida
How are they their own background? They are the point of the previous authors and you don't need to read them all now before you turn 25 or you'll never get them, people study them well after having their PhD

Also
>Foucault
>Barthes
They are pretty open to new readers, you could grab them with a very basic philosophy understanding.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 14:48:14 2014 No.5662553

>>5661830
>artfulness
While I don't know the exact term for this, artfulness is the level of artistic focus on a work - whether a work is created with artistic intention, maybe in disregard to money, maybe in disregard to the popular currents. A work is less artful when it is created to sate the masses or if the artist's vision gets watered-down for a variety of reasons (or isn't all too important to begin with), but all works have a degree of artfulness, and all works are created with artistic intention involved. What you hold on to seems to me to be a kind of purantism, which is a hopelessly outdated view of art, as far as I'm concerned. The high/low dichotomy hasn't been relevant since the fin de siecle as far as I see it.

>Not really, that's your general knee jerk post 50's rejection of institutions speaking
in all art schools that I know of, they think about art in this way.

Post-structuralism isn't all too related to my argument (or if so, post-structuralist thought that I'm not aware of). Subjectivity is much more central, which follows the disintegration of the high/low dichotomy. Consensus then is secondary, and is also based on subjectivity.

>But you are paying a lot of attention to the general public
How so?
I am talking about what to me seems to be the consensus among artists and the art world itself, after having studied at an art school, studied art history, and read countless books on art.

I am not talking about the 'quality' of a work, as it isn't relevant to this discussion of 'what is art?' - quality is up to who judges the work, even if it is a shallow misinterpretation. If it IS or IS NOT art is a wholly different question.

My point that I forgot was that a work can have a high level of artfulness and yet NOT be art. In Norway we call is kunsthåndtverk - basically art-handicraft, handicraft where a lot of work goes into decoration/ornamentation, ie. secondary work that goes beyond the mere function of an object. Yet, since the object is designed to have a function, the ornamentation is merely secondary, and the object cannot be called art.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 15:21:01 2014 No.5662680 >>5661750 lol is this true?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 15:27:29 2014 No.5662704 >>5655135 Husserl, Heidegger (his term called "Destruction"), Saussure, Austin.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 15:28:43 2014 No.5662711 >>5659808 >Jerk store called, they are running out of you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 18:09:16 2014 No.5663307 >>5655135 >Beckett ...FFS

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 18:24:10 2014 No.5663371 >>5661830 >>Foucault >pretty open to new readers, you could grab them with a very basic philosophy understanding lol, if you say so anime man

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 18:27:10 2014 No.5663376 File: 6 KB, 275x183, applicable.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5663371 Not animebro but I read most of Foucault's shit in Highschool and everything made sense. He's not really that hard to understand? Not like reading some of the Germans.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 18:29:49 2014 No.5663390 >>5663376 Word. Heidegger is the worst unintelligible garbage ever.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 18:36:29 2014 No.5663420

>>5663390
Even comparing two characters like say Kant and Foucault which you encounter in most first year university classes, Kant is much less accessible even in his ethics then the whole of Foucault's writings. You might not be able to relate Foucault to his predecessors but in understand what he is saying he is word for word more intelligible than Kant. (and many others) I wouldn't just read Foucault though, or Kant for that matter, It's important to understand the progression of philosophy and that's why "Start with the greeks"

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 20:31:44 2014 No.5663920 >only the text matters >muh death of the author >interpretations are for fags There, I just summed up post-structuralism for you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 20:35:33 2014 No.5663933 >>5662704 You forgot about Althusser.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 20:37:41 2014 No.5663939 >now that I know what a word means, it is everywhere and used by everyone funny how that works isn't it now if you want a real buzz-concept, Hauntology was big 5 or so years back

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 20:54:12 2014 No.5664004 >>5663939 Hauntology is still pretty big, and I only see it becoming more prominent as time goes on.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 20:56:37 2014 No.5664014 >>5664004 that's the point duuuuuuude

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 21:06:48 2014 No.5664049 >>5663939 >>now that I know what a word means, it is everywhere and used by everyone http://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon/

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 21:41:22 2014 No.5664164
File: 1006 KB, 300x224, Stop hibari kun.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5662553
Okay, wait, no.
You're definition of "artfullness" is the same I call "artistic intention", you're just being tautological and demanding that art is defined for it fullness of art while I'm saying that the quality comes from the desire to be art in the production of it. It's an on off thing, not a value level.
I never said anything about high or low art, it all started with you saying that a Michael Bay movie has artistic intent, which it doesn't, it's made through established mechanisms without any desire to be a work of art but to entertrain and sell as much as it is supposed to sell if you do the things they are supposed to do. It's a sausage made to be consumed as one.

I completely agree with that word and I'd really really would like to learn it. Could you post some approximation of how an english speaker would pronounce it (spanish would be even better, but I'm assuming enlgish is our common ground)?
In spanish we have "arte" for art and "artesanía" for handicraft. And of course on of the biggest differences is the intention of the work (but according to Hegel the fact that the public and peers don't take it as art and that it is fulfilled it's function by being used would also make it "not art").

This whole discussing started with someone accusing me of using art as value (Michael Bay's movies are art just like Tarkovsky or some other example), and it was never the case. Which doesn't mean that something can be made with artistic techniques without being art (there was the example of a painting made with a set criteria to fulfill vs a painting made with a general objective set at the beginning, the first one not being art because the author is filling blanks while the second one is not different from the artist deciding that he'll now do a painting only with shades of blue which doesn't take away from the artistic spirit of the work)

I don't know if you're the first guy and we were doing circles because of language or if you came later and it got confusing.

>>5663371
I have friends who read Foucault in HS and their understanding was only lacking in that they hadn't some life experiences to correctly interpret the work; usually they took his ideas as part of a communist/libertarianist banner, which is sort of waste. His stuff grows with a deeper pool of knowledge, but you CAN just read him unlike many other philosophers that people read anyway without a good context.

Also, anime girl would be more correct ;^)

>>5663420
Seconding this post.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 21:57:54 2014 No.5664224 File: 94 KB, 988x1534, hiabri balck white.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5664164 Woah, what a way to fuck it from the start >your I'm sorry, I was too exited and started my post like three or four times.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 22:26:29 2014 No.5664324 >>5664049 have you read the Don Delillo short story? you can find a newyorker outloud where Chang-Rae Lee (a decent writer by himself)

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 22:36:51 2014 No.5664373 >>5664164 What's your anime of the year, I loved Love Stage a lot.

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 22:43:37 2014 No.5664404

>>5664373
The thread is enough of a cluster fuck for you to derail it like this.
I saw like 7 episodes and it was disgusting, both in art and in narrative. The fact that people translate it because it's new and ignore Stop Hibari Kun because it's old gets me quite mad, I tell you.
I don't think I've seen any new stuff, never completed anything for sure. The newest anime I've finished is Kaiji; and this year I was gonna watch all Gundam but Z was so hard to stand and ZZ outright disgusting, so I had to put again the project on hold.
Watching Ashita no Joe right now.

(love you)

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 23:11:18 2014 No.5664529 >>5664404 Do you want to be my girlfriend?

Anonymous Fri Oct 31 23:31:19 2014 No.5664583

>>5664529
No.
We live in different countries, if you're gonna go asking out recognizable people in here you should go for Kitty, she's the best tripfag we have and she also has the correct genitalia.Still, I'm flattered even knowing that it's a silly exaggeration. Love you to, anon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 31 23:35:01 2014 No.5664593 >>5664583 Once, a girl from /lit/ gave me her e-mail. I was too scared to message her.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 1 00:09:56 2014 No.5664691 >>5664164 I'm not the guy who mentioned Michael Bay. This discussion is a bit confusing. Anyway, the clock is 5 in the night, and I'll reply on the morrow:)

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 1 12:02:04 2014 No.5666098 >>5664691 Looks like I've won this argument then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 1 12:08:53 2014 No.5666106 >>5666098 He isn't coming back tomorrow, he's coming back on his bird called Morrow!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 1 12:15:53 2014 No.5666117 >>5655028 Still cn't see the difference between post-rock and prog-rock. Same style, same song length, same influences, same attempt of making an intellectual version of rock, same thing altogether more or less.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 1 12:36:22 2014 No.5666160 >>5666117 Prog rock is pretentious wankery, post-rock is honest music and the artists usually aren't that technically skilled.

Anonymous Sat Nov 1 12:46:29 2014 No.5666199

>>5666098
What argument? I was saying the same as the swedish guy, so there was nothing to "win" there, I still want to know how to pronounce his cool words for artcraft.

If you're the guy saying that you can't know the intention behind a work then you're just dumb.

Anonymous Sat Nov 1 12:47:53 2014 No.5666208

>>5666160
Why don't you try the other way around? Prog Rock appeared in a time in which you needed an extensive background to get a public, while post-rock is a silly label anyone can put on themselves and it doesn't mean anything after being diluted so much.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 1 15:11:05 2014 No.5666766 >>5666106 What does that mean?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 1 15:34:01 2014 No.5666845 >>5664004 >Hauntology absolute bullshit

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 1 17:33:19 2014 No.5667516 Oh god, what happened in this thread?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 1 17:36:30 2014 No.5667537 >>5667516 Many few threads in /lit/ reach the 200 posts without lots of oot and people answering things that were answered already

Anonymous Sat Nov 1 18:02:08 2014 No.5667687

>>5655004
anon, first you have to read some other stuff to understand these frenchies, from the top of my head:
>Heidegger: Being and Time (or some of his essays, like the "origin of artwork")
>Saussure: lectures on linguistics (or whatever it's called)
>Nietzsche: Genealogy of Morals, or Beyond Good and Evil
>And maybe some knowledge of Lévi-Strauss or structuralism in general.

Then start with Derrida's "structure sign play", Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" or Deleuze's "Nietzsche and Philosophy"...

The point is that Derrida isn't a pseudo-philosopher, he's "différant" from the usual common sense philosophy - creative/inventive in other words, if you even accept this as something valuable as opposed to being merely common-sensical. It's nearly impossible for a beginner to get into his works *without* any background.
All this makes/made him more interesting for some of us. The some goes for other frenchies and philosophers in general.

Anonymous Sat Nov 1 18:09:00 2014 No.5667723

>>5663307
Yeah, Beckett isn't needed at all. But at the same time his writings are pretty close to the feeling of anxiety of language that Derrida sometimes mentions. The instability of meaning and so on and so on... Definitely wouldn't hurt to read some Beckett like Molloy to get the *feel* of what some of Derrida's work is dealing with. Derrida tries to be affirmative of the play of language though, while Beckett is swimming in anxiety.

Anonymous Sat Nov 1 18:18:46 2014 No.5667781

>>5667687
In case you know and care: Is there a recommended order for Hans-Greor Gadamer? I know it very tangentially related to the thread, but I just wanted to know if I was gonna skip some needed steps just checking some texts. I have some stuff about the wrod as art and art as a symbol, a celebration and a game.

Anonymous Sat Nov 1 18:19:14 2014 No.5667785

>>5660520
The point of D is that the map *is* the territory ("there is no outside-text"), however, the way of being of territory is that of map and not the other way around. There is no reality out there, in other words, text or writing is all we have. And of course these terms take a new meaning, D's point being that the world behaves like writing.
To me K sounds like Kant. While D is like Nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 1 18:19:48 2014 No.5667789 >>5667516 What didn't happen!

Anonymous Sat Nov 1 19:35:28 2014 No.5668095

>>5667785
I think that some people take a sort of close minded view of that concept and ignore that the work's context and the author who wrote is is also part of the paratext of the work. It's not right to assume that one interpretation is more valid because the author said so, but it is important to know the background the author had when writing the work,

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 00:03:01 2014 No.5669264 This thread should be in page 1.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 00:51:24 2014 No.5669420

>>5664164
>a Michael Bay movie has artistic intent, which it doesn't,

The entire point of this discussion was to establish the fact that you don't know that, you can never know, and you're an idiot if you think you can. How someone can manage to read Derrida and come out with the idea that not only is there an objective difference between "art" and "not art", but that the difference involves your vague, subjective appeal to whether or not the artist intended for it to be art, which is impossible knowledge and it's laughable that you would believe something like this.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? My observation further up thread about you engaging in faux-pretentious ideology concerning art still seems correct. An argument like the one you're using is utilized by teenagers attempting to distance themselves from "plebs" based on a fabricated and arbitrary distinction.

>it's made through established mechanisms without any desire to be a work of art but to entertrain and sell as much as it is supposed to sell if you do the things they are supposed to do. It's a sausage made to be consumed as one.

Still waiting for you to share with the rest of us your rigorous method for discerning "intent" and "desire" via an artist's work. It's been days since I asked you initially and you still continue to dodge the question. I won't hold my breath.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 00:53:34 2014 No.5669428 >>5667785 This is a good point actually. Derrida is much more of a monist than Korzybski.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 00:55:03 2014 No.5669431

>>5667781

Start with his collected papers in 'Philosophical Hermeneutics' and if you're into it move onto 'Truth and Method'.

But make sure you've already read Heidegger's Letter on Humanism and 'On the Way to Language'.

Personally, I find Gadamer a bit vacuous, but that's just me.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:08:22 2014 No.5669481

>>5669420
>The entire point of this discussion
No, it was a point that was brought up by another anon and I took it from a Hegelian position. You seem to think you are too mature to dedicate time to some things, but understanding the human relationship with a very specific type of comunication is a more than valid concern.
If you keep getting caught on the a pretty vague and easy to recognize criteria without explaining why you find it flawed.

>dodge the question
There came up an example alreayd in the thread and I explained how it can be understood for the context of the work. A work without context wouldn't be considered a work of art but a cultural or sociological item, like a recovered greek jar. I'm not dodging anything, I just don't know what else you want me to answer.

This other poster>>5662553
Commented how your idea of using artfulnes is pretty dumb too and commented on the difference between art and handicraft, even if he confused what each one of us were saying.

>>5669431
>a bit vacuous
Something in particular or he just can't hold the weight of Heideger's ghost?

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:12:50 2014 No.5669495
File: 308 KB, 640x480, STOP!! Hibari kun! 01 (DVD 640x480 DivX5.11).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5669481
A bit of a continuation:
If you find that someone isn't answering something you want to know you don't keep asking the same question and accusing them of being childs. If someone doesn't seem to answer the right way you can present your ideas in a different way to make them clearer, and if you can't it might be a sign of not having a complete idea behind you.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:16:54 2014 No.5669637

>>5669583
You are the one giving value when there is no way to do so. Nothing has more artistic value because art has no intrinsic value. It's easy to say
>Bay's output has less artistic merit than Tarkovsky's
but how about Godard against Marker, or Tarkovsky against Einsestein. You are implying that art is measurable, all I'm saying is that there is a difference between art and craft.

>art is determined by the public's reaction
I never said that, I referred to three factors and none of them were the public. There's no point in bringing the masses into consideration because they aren't interested in the subject enough to make a serious judgment. It's like bringing any philosophical discussion to someone without any previous knowledge, you'll keep revisiting the same basic ideas and as soon as you present a more or less well formed frame work people will assume that's right. You can still see people getting stuck in Descartes.
That's the utility of considering academia and other artists. And before a knee jerk reaction to the concept of people who dedicate their lives to the subject being the ones whose opinion has extra value, if there's one, I'd like to hear examples of works of art being entirely ignored by both fronts forever and left only for the public to care about. It is a slow process but even Burroughs retelling how much junk he shot and how is considered part of a cannon.

>does the piece in question have subjective aesthetic value and evokes recognition of this value in the observer?
That could include each and every time you take a shit, make a meal, see a friend, or anything.

And, again, I can't comment how you'd understand the intention in a work because I can't think of any work of art situated in a context we don't know. We even keep register of lots of works of at that might as well not have existed, if anything we err in favor of having more context than works.

>>5669591
He's pretty big in aesthetics, but I was just gonna start with his language stuff so you're bumming me down a bit.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:22:51 2014 No.5669648
File: 248 KB, 600x600, l_hakase afuro_terumi from idolmaster.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5669637
Another one of the pointless artistic merit battles would be:
>Bad Boys 2 vs In the Name of the King
>Whooper vs Big Mac
Or even better
>Chopin vs Picasso
>Goya vs Olivier Messiaen

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:23:56 2014 No.5669649

>>5669637
>He's pretty big in aesthetics, but I was just gonna start with his language stuff so you're bumming me down a bit.

As I said, it's just my opinion, no biggie. But 'Philosophical Hermeneutics' is probably the most language-oriented work I've read of his. You might get a lot out of it, I have no idea.

But if you like I can recommend lots of other writers on language (I'm going into postgrad neurolinguistics next year, just finished a linguistics/philosophy degree).

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:25:40 2014 No.5669527 Heidegger is pretty essential to getting into Derrida. Derrida's early and middle work is basically completing Being and Time (the unwritten parts in which Heidi was setting out for the destruktion of philosophy, ie deconstruction).

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:26:49 2014 No.5669652 >>5669648 >Goya vs Olivier Messiaen I haven't even listened to the other guy and I can tell you Goya wins.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:31:42 2014 No.5669656
File: 348 KB, 654x1000, garakuta_omocha 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5669649
It's not my main area of interest, but yeah, sure. I hate going to the library, not find what I want and just wander around aimlessly until I find a name I care about; so any recommendation would be well received.

>>5669652
Do you have a problem with Messiaen? Wanna fight?
I was just chosing two random artist from fields that couldn't be compared to show how it's pointless to imagine art as something quantifiable. I'm not sure if Goya could really fight Olivier in terms of renovating a well that seemed completely dry, historically music has a certain spirit of renewal in new directions that most arts can't really match up.
Love Goya anyway, absolutely nothing wrong with loving him.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:36:07 2014 No.5669662

>>5669656

I was just kidding about Messiaen. I just love Goya so much.

Some really good authors on language are Philip Lieberman, Michael Tomasello, Norman Geschwind, Kurt Goldstein, Donald Davidson, George Lakoff, Ray Jackendoff, and Andy Clark. Just off the top of my head. There are many others in more specific areas, of course.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:37:56 2014 No.5669664 >>5669656 >>5669662 Also Graham Priest for a good exegesis of the logical perspective.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:44:51 2014 No.5669672

>>5669637
>You are implying that art is measurable

No, I'm implying it's subjective. You seem to think otherwise.

>all I'm saying is that there is a difference between art and craft.

And you're free to make that distinction but it's a needless one and it really only serves to bolster your own view of yourself as some kind of art connoisseur far removed from the plebeian masses who don't like the same kind of art that you do. You'd like to draw some arbitrary line between art and entertainment as if there is some fundamental difference between them when in fact they are deeply intertwined and, depending on how you choose to look at it, one and the same. You don't like the idea of your specific brand of art being labeled "entertainment" because you seem to think the idea of entertainment is somehow beneath you, ignoring the fact that the Tarkovsky or Eisenstein or Resnais movie is every bit a piece of entertainment as a Bay movie; it's just entertaining in a different way. You can be viscerally entertained by crude reconstructions of exploding cars and airplanes or you can be intellectually or spiritually entertained by the more cerebral works of Bergman. You're being entertained either way. Your need to separate various types of entertainment into vague and arbitrary boxes with neat little bows on top speaks more to your insecurity regarding your taste in art more than to any alleged concern about maintaining artistic standards.

>That could include each and every time you take a shit, make a meal, see a friend, or anything.

And?

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:47:15 2014 No.5669676

>>5669637
>And, again, I can't comment how you'd understand the intention in a work because I can't think of any work of art situated in a context we don't know.

You only think you know. For all you know, Michael Bay could very well be under the impression he is indeed making art. To draw arbitrary lines based on what you think the intent behind the work was smacks of pretension, and even though that word gets thrown around here enough to approach meaninglessness, it perfectly describes your approach to art.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:49:36 2014 No.5669680 >>5669676 >it perfectly describes your approach to art. And your awkward, stilted writing style.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:51:43 2014 No.5669683 >>5669680 Damn son I better get some ice for that burn!

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:52:06 2014 No.5669583

>>5669481
>If you keep getting caught on the a pretty vague and easy to recognize criteria without explaining why you find it flawed.

It is precisely your vague, subjective, and arbitrary criteria that I'm taking issue with. Like I said earlier in the thread, you are free to define art however you wish, but the definition you are using is not one many people share with you.

Also, I never said Bay was comparable to Tarkovsky. I may hold the opinion that Bay's output has less artistic merit than Tarkovsky's, but it is still art nonetheless, and I'm not the type of person who looks down upon a certain artist's output as "not art" just because his particular flavour of art doesn't jive with my personal taste. That's a decidedly adolescent stance to take.

Even if we were to take your argument at face value, the idea that art is determined by the public's reaction to it and that if no one recognizes your work you "might as well had stayed home", it still crumbles under itself because there are plenty of people who do consider Michael Bay's movies to be art. Furthermore, how many people "recognizing" an artist's work as art does it take before it truly does become art? Just one? If so, then for the purposes of this conversation let's say I consider Bad Boys 2 to be art, thus your argument falls on its face. Does it take more than one person? If so, how many, and what system are you using to determine the amount of people?

You accuse of putting forth a definition of "art" that "fails to work with mechanic constructions", but your distinction is about as arbitrary as it gets, and is not in line with the popular usage of the term "art".

A hard-and-fast guide to deciding what is art might resemble this: does the piece in question have subjective aesthetic value and evokes recognition of this value in the observer? If so, it is art.

>don't keep asking the same question and accusing them of being childs

I keep asking you because it's essential to the argument you're trying to make, yet you refuse to address it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 01:53:46 2014 No.5669591 >>5669481 Nothing in particular, it's just that as a linguist I don't see how endless prevarication about 'opening conversation' and 'fusing horizons' is meant to lead to any insight into language.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 02:01:08 2014 No.5669702
File: 73 KB, 450x550, bf543ede03d939c47cdfa9316f918479.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5669672
>art is subjective
>You seem to think otherwise
No, again, if some considered art objetive there would be a way to say
>Bay's output has less artistic merit than Tarkovsky's (your line)

The concept of entertainment was never part of the discussion and it doesn't need to be a part of it, i don't know why you bring it up.

>>That could include each and every time you take a shit, make a meal, see a friend, or anything.
>And?
Then the word becomes meaningless since it includes everything in existence and you'd have to invent a new one to describe the unique relationship someone has with a work of art and the value it has on our culture.

>>5669676
>arbitrary lines
I haven't changed my position since ever and I'm keeping it on top of previous writers smarter than me that took more time to bring those ideas in consideration and were recognized by their peers.

>for all you know
>he may be under the impression that he is making art
He might be under the impression that he is making a cake, that's why there's an equal importance in the recognition of peers and academia. Besides that it's not hard at all to see his previous works, watch interviews where he talks about his craft and to compare his work with contemporaries to get an understanding of his social place and conceptual context. The same way you can understand Dicken's or Aristotle's.

>>5669680
Was that a "burn" for me or him?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 02:07:34 2014 No.5669707 >>5669702 It was directed at >>5669676 . I don't really consider "yuo cant kno nuffin!" a valid approach to culture. If we're calling Michael Bay's work 'art' then the word 'art' has already lost all meaning.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 02:12:46 2014 No.5669716

>>5669707
>If we're calling Michael Bay's work 'art' then the word 'art' has already lost all meaning.
Bay's work is indeed art, and very clever and talented art at that. He's a visual artist, though, and perhaps his stuff works better as a series of screenshots than as a movie.

P.S. I don't care if he's a good 'moviemaker' or not, as I don't care for 'movies' as an artform in the first place. I do know, however, that Bay would be amazing if he knew how to paint instead.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 02:13:27 2014 No.5669718

>>5669702
>Bay's output has less artistic merit than Tarkovsky's (your line)

That Bay's output has less artistic merit than Tarkovsky's was an example of a subjective opinion regarding art. It was not an argument for objectivity and I'm not sure why you're interpreting it that way.

>The concept of entertainment was never part of the discussion and it doesn't need to be a part of it, i don't know why you bring it up.

It's fundamental to the argument. You seem to think there is some inherent distinction between entertainment and art. There's not.

>He might be under the impression that he is making a cake

Cake is pretty rigidly defined and I don't think I've ever seen a case of someone mistaking their cinematic output for a cake. Even so it would depend on the widely accepted definition of the word being used, and in the case of art, you're not using it in the same way as many people. You're using it to exclude singular pieces of art you don't personally find appealing. Your use of the phrase "not art" is a slightly less retarded version of "thing I don't like".

>>5669707
>If we're calling Michael Bay's work 'art' then the word 'art' has already lost all meaning.

This is another example of the adolescent approach to art I was talking about. You can find comments like this in the Youtube comments section of any given dadrock video, made by lonely teenagers lamenting the fact that they were "born in the wrong generation".

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 02:27:58 2014 No.5669746

>>5654908
Are you an idiot? Most anthropology and sociology of the past century was either structuralist or a response to structuralism. You might as well question whether a Bhutanese cartoon forum is responsible for Durkheim, Saussure, and essentially every modern thinker.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 02:52:29 2014 No.5669769 speaking of buzzwords, can anyone explain to me the epic new meme, "pure ideology"?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 02:57:48 2014 No.5669780 >>5669769 Your post is an example of it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 03:13:23 2014 No.5669805 >>5669780 isn't ideology just a system of ideas? i still don't understand

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 03:25:02 2014 No.5669822
File: 459 KB, 500x579, only the dead.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5669805
Sort of, yes. It's kind of synonymous with "worldview"; the lens through which you interpret and interact with life. Everyone has an ideology, except instead of being genetically inherited like eye or hair colour it's transferred memetically, perhaps from your parents or your upbringing or your environment or a combination of many different things that all come together to mold your individual perception and prejudices.

When Zizek talks about ideology he's talking about the kind of unquestioned assumptions people carry without even realizing it. He points out examples of ideology in pop culture and politics etc., and he stresses becoming aware of your own engrained ideology as a way of combating it. Unfortunately one of his points is that there truly is no escaping ideology; everyone partakes in it in some way or another, and even if you think you've eradicated one ideological way of thinking you've merely replaced it with another.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 03:29:46 2014 No.5669831 >>5669822 bretty much dis :DDD people who use 'ideology' as an pejorative are neck deep in it themselves.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 03:31:22 2014 No.5669834

>>5669805
The word was popularized in a new sense by Marxism. In that context ideology is roughly supposed to be something that blinds you from reality (e.g. from exploitation in capitalism). But the word was later dropped by many, particularly with post-structuralism which became suspicious of any such reality existing beyond ideology. Thinkers that are still close to Marxism, like Žižek, still use the word, but it has become more of an idiom than a serious concept.
Saying that something particular is pure ideology is itself pretty ideological since it implies that the one saying this knows some "real truth" behind that ideology i.e. it implies that his own thinking is beyond ideology as such.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 03:35:08 2014 No.5669842 >>5669834 okay thanks for clarifying, specifically the irony in using the phrase.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 03:36:56 2014 No.5669851 >>5669822 so in other words, "pure ideology" is synonymous with "harmful, unquestioned assumption"?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 03:39:19 2014 No.5669857 >>5669851 Pretty much yes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 03:42:37 2014 No.5669859 >>5667785 Good post, Derrida in this way (or in this interpretation, I'm sure there are others) is a 'strong textualist', and thus obviously bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 04:05:24 2014 No.5669886 >>5669859 >is a 'strong textualist', and thus obviously bullshit. Why is it obvious bullshit? He argues that self-sufficient entities, like God, are impossible. To me his "strong textualism" is "strong atheist ontology".

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 09:08:50 2014 No.5670413

>>5669702
Why do so many people believe that there is some artistic merit in everything and that one piece of art can't be better than some other?

Some actually think that there is no proof that one music is "better" than the other or that music by, let's say, Webern or Feldman has the same value as the music of Chief Keef or Drake.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 09:13:28 2014 No.5670433

>>5669886
>Why is it obvious bullshit?
>He argues that self-sufficient entities, like God, are impossible.
>To me his "strong textualism" is "strong atheist ontology".
I don't see how those sentences have anything to do with each other. The problem is clearer when you look at the post I quoted: Derrida basically denies that there can be a meaningful engagement with the boundaries of language and what lies beyond. Of course when we talk about something, we are representing it inside of language, but not all thought is linguaform and we have various interesting avenues of dealing with the interface of language and experience, actually (Stirner, parts of cognitive linguistics like image schemata, Korzybski and methods using him such as Gestalt Therapy). The fixation on langauge is the biggest weakness of post-structuralism in general, also Foucault for example.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 10:37:37 2014 No.5670654 >comparing Bay with Tarkovsky >one work of art doesnt have more or less artistic merit than the other Nice postmodernist meme.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 11:19:40 2014 No.5670801

>>5670433
I agree that I should have been clearer. Funnily enough, the post that you mention was written by myself.
For Derrida nothing exists in itself or by itself. How is this connected to writing? Because writing has that same mentioned way of working which has also been denied in speech where the speaking subject is an absolute source and absolutely present, and the same goes for spoken meaning. Subject, object, substance, reality, truth, actuality, facts, God, heaven, origin, end, things in themselves... all these are supposed to escape the play of the world just like speech escapes the play of signification, yet they are also supposed to ground the world and fix it, in some way or another. They are all "onto-theological" or "metaphysical" concepts, posing something transcendent. They are posed as the center of a structure yet exist outside of it.
When Derrida uses writing and text he is trying to undermine metaphysics as radically as possible (at the root), even if that is a never ending process (the idea of *the* root is itself metaphysical).

>Derrida basically denies that there can be a meaningful engagement with the boundaries of language and what lies beyond.
This interpretation is precisely what I intended to implicitly criticize in that post you mention. For Derrida such "beyond" is not only epistemologically but ontologically impossible (or "ontographically" if you will). It does not exist. For example: how can God himself not be subjected to worldly events in some way if he is also supposed to be in some way related to the world? How is anything possible outside of the world or totality at all? Anything outside the world is merely an expansion of the world and is thus inside it. Now replace God/world dichotomy with any other, e.g. reality/perception.
And all this is nothing completely new, far from it. Nietzsche already went in similar direction.

>The fixation on langauge is the biggest weakness of post-structuralism in general, also Foucault for example.
For most of them language is merely a metaphor for something much bigger, and merely one metaphor among many others. I see it neither as reduction nor as fixation. The metaphor of language is mostly absent in Deleuze, yet what he is not that far from Derrida or Foucault.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 11:33:46 2014 No.5670846

>>5670801
>For example: how can God himself not be subjected to worldly events in some way if he is also supposed to be in some way related to the world? How is anything possible outside of the world or totality at all? Anything outside the world is merely an expansion of the world and is thus inside it. Now replace God/world dichotomy with any other, e.g. reality/perception.
>And all this is nothing completely new, far from it. Nietzsche already went in similar direction.
How is the relationship between God and the world an 'example' that illustrates the relationship between language and phenomenal perception? The interesting part is that the misconception that elevates language to some sort of all-encompassing and determining power is not limited to poststructuralists (in their 'continental' approach) but also rampant among for example Chomsky-influenced classical cognitive science. They never even consider the possibility that language is just a thin film floating on top of a far greater depth. Of course, if you look from above the depth is always filtered through the film, but it is silly to imagine that the scum floating on top determines the ocean.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 11:35:42 2014 No.5670852 File: 5 KB, 207x283, Jackie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5654908 Logocentric discourse is unable to explain why Derrida is so sexy.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 11:37:27 2014 No.5670857

>>5670846

But this is exactly the tack Foucault, in contrast to Chomsky and the structuralists - every single one of his books is concerned with human practices, in the deep sense you're talking about, not with mere words - capital-D 'Discourse', not 'discourse'.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 11:38:24 2014 No.5670860 >>5670852 it was the eighties, everyone was attractive back then

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 11:38:35 2014 No.5670862 >>5670857 *the tack Foucault took

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 11:45:19 2014 No.5670882

>>5670857
I have to read more Foucault, but I feel that he also falls prey to this superficiality of words at some points:

a) His criticism of Reich and liberation, that the human we are trying to liberate is itself a far deeper oppression. Well, Reich was privy to the insights of Stirner, what he wanted to liberate wasn't in fact the 'human subject' in the form that has been colonized by linguaform power. Of course Reich had a more realistic medical perspective on human development than Stirner, so he knew that prophylaxis is our best shot because for most people it's too late/hard to ghostbust their spooks.

b) His investigation of Ethics of the Care for the Self of the Greeks vs. codified morals of christianity. The differences are actually very shallow if you look at them in terms of social power, heteronomy, socio-economic value systems, etc. The majority of what he reads as 'freedom' and 'self-determination' in the Greeks is actually just window-dressing on conformity, funnily enough his own criticism of modern liberal freedom works on most of what he investigates as an inspiration for future practices of freedom.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 11:47:34 2014 No.5670890 >>5670882 As a linguist, that seems to me to be more of a product of the fact that he's using equivocal/vague language, not of any excessive focus on language per se.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 11:53:26 2014 No.5670912

>>5670890
>As a linguist, that seems to me to be more of a product of the fact that he's using equivocal/vague language, not of any excessive focus on language per se.
I don't think so. People who use clear language make similar errors (as I alluded to above with classical cognitive science). For example, Metzinger does is in the Ego Tunnel when he identifies linguaform reporting with phenomenal experience in his claim that changes in culture and religion have changed the range of experience we have (not in the content of the claim, but because the conditions of knowing this would only hold true if the identity of the two things held true, which is a typical example of what I criticise).

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 11:58:37 2014 No.5670938

>>5670912

But neither the Foucault/Reich/ethics example nor the Metzinger example are actually addressing anything to do with language! I agree that they're probably falling into errors of judgement and are misled *by* language, but in neither case is there a "fixation" on language per se.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 12:02:11 2014 No.5670955 >>5670912 >>5670938 By the way, Metzinger isn't an example of a 'classical cognitive scientist' - he's a philosopher of mind.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 12:40:15 2014 No.5671077

>>5670955
>Metzinger isn't an example of a 'classical cognitive scientist'
I know, I mentioned him as an example of people with clear language, not an example of LoT or anything like that.

>>5670938
>But neither the Foucault/Reich/ethics example nor the Metzinger example are actually addressing anything to do with language! I agree that they're probably falling into errors of judgement and are misled *by* language, but in neither case is there a "fixation" on language per se.

That's exactly the case, but it would take a while to argue...

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 12:54:57 2014 No.5671148

>>5671077

Well then it still isn't clear to me how the post structuralists are supposedly 'fixated' upon language, as was claimed earlier. If anything, the 'post' in post-structuralism actually indicates the intention to escape the hypostatization of language that characterized structuralist anthropology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 13:44:02 2014 No.5671349 >>5655142 I'm here for you anon...

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 14:34:03 2014 No.5671582
File: 192 KB, 726x1080, tumblr_mnjq2nai5T1s3rlr2o1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5669718
>was an example of a subjective opinion regarding art.
Because to put a scale between two authors means you can scale any two others. If someone is more art than another it means there is a level division, which is much sillier than just accepting that stuff that doesn't want to be art, isn't recognized as such and lacks an autonomous structure is art.

You seem that entertainment has a value. It doesn't science can be entertaining, cleaning can be entertaining, consuming art can be, and at the same time it can be serious and worrying matter. Goya wasn't entertained by his later paintings, not me meant the spectators to be.

>you're not using it in the same way as many people.
I'm suing it as it has been understood in aesthetic philosophy for more than a hundred years. If a store sells bread naming it cake it doesn't mean that the cook will take it the same way. Popular misinterpretation isn't something to be considered in a specialized space.
Also, you keep assuming I love everything that could be considered art, I don't know why. I really don't care for a lot of artists and I can understand their output and context without actually feeling anything from their work, at no point in this argument I've made a division based on personal taste, I keep using words like context, peers or academia.

Also, stop using adolescent as an insult, it makes you look sound as if you couldn't use real words to express yourself.

>>5670413
Because better is a meaningless word.
A work of art may have a bigger historical impact, it may resonate more with you, it may have a wider message, it may have a stronger impact (and it may achieve that by focusing on a single feeling or showing a variety of situations or being more understandable or trying to be more absolute orits symbolism may carry more meaning).
"Better" and "worse" are discussion stoppers, you don't get anything from the person who uses them and you can expand upon them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 14:43:30 2014 No.5671636 >>5671582 >"Better" and "worse" are discussion stoppers, you don't get anything from the person who uses them and you can expand upon them. How do you have a discussion with people then? When you compare one work of art with another.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 14:44:42 2014 No.5671641

Oh, well, the thread entered autosage. It had some interesting points here and there I guess. Nice reading and having this chats, everyone.

>>5670654
That isn't even postmodernism, it's a sub section of cultural relativism that only has academic pressence becuase it supports artistic industries. We entered the XXth century with a pretty resolute understanding that mass production was the art killer, Benjamin had to jump so many ropes to justify the possibility of cinema and photography as art during the 20's, and then the CIA spread pop art as the new coming of the coolest vanguard and they set that relativism in motion.

>>5670846
I think you two are pretty right on your own terms, but the thing with understanding language as "everything" is not so much that it IS everything but that we understand everything through it. You can't get knowledge beyond a language since it might exist as a filter between reality and our minds but as such it ends up mixed with everything to the point in which it is everything.
That doesn't mean that by virtue of needing mathematics to understand values the values loose meaning over the structure, but you can't ever get the absolute values without the structure that brought them.

>>5670852
Check mate

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 14:47:17 2014 No.5671657

>>5671636
You comment on the components of the work, not about tiers. You find conections of style or structure, you try to understand how and why each went in a certain direction and what differences that brings in your understanding.
That's without going back to external texts and comparing the works with their context, consider how they work with certain author's structures and ideas or propose new interpretations of those external texts through the lens of those works.

When you say better you might as well be humming a sad song.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 14:49:29 2014 No.5671672 >>5671657 No one I associate myself with discusses things in that way. Everything comes down to "X is better than Z because...".

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 14:51:47 2014 No.5671687 >>5671672 You can just jump to the because and save the rest of the guys your personal scale. No one around me tends to work out, that doesn't mean you shouldn't. I believe it's one of those things that take one or two to start it and it spreads out.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 15:23:35 2014 No.5671884

>>5671582
>Because to put a scale between two authors means you can scale any two others

Congratulations! You've just discovered the world of subjective art taste.

>If someone is more art than another

"More art than another"? What the fuck does his mean? No one ITT so far has argued for the usage of the terms "more" or "less" art than something else. I am arguing that your definition of art itself is adolescent.

>which is much sillier than just accepting that stuff that doesn't want to be art, isn't recognized as such and lacks an autonomous structure is art.

No, the silly thing is thinking you are the determinant of what is and isn't art based on some pseudo-forensic investigation into the intent or desire of the author behind the work, the details of which you still won't share with us but just expect us to take it on your word that such gnostic information was handed down to up from upon high.

>I'm suing it as it has been understood in aesthetic philosophy for more than a hundred years.

No you're not.

>Also, stop using adolescent as an insult, it makes you look sound as if you couldn't use real words to express yourself.

Adolescent isn't a real word?

Look, it's becoming increasingly obvious that English isn't your first language. On top of that, you still refuse to provide your rigorous method for discerning authorial intent. I asked you very early in the thread, yet you still refuse to answer. There's nothing more to discuss here until you decide to answer the question.

Anonymous Sun Nov 2 15:28:55 2014 No.5671912

>>5670413
>>5671636
>Why do so many people believe that there is some artistic merit in everything and that one piece of art can't be better than some other?

While I've disagreed with anime guy throughout this entire thread, he is at least right about one thing. You are using "better" incorrectly. Something can't just be "better" than something else because the word "better" is operative. Better for what?

In matters of taste, when you say Feldman is "better" than Drake, you simply mean he's "better" at meeting your own standard subjective criteria for music. He's better at pushing your personal buttons.

What anime guy is trying (and failing) to argue is that since he may consider Drake to be below whatever personal standards he's set up for himself (the vague and vacuous gesturing toward authorial intent, for example Drake isn't serious about making art when he creates his music) then that means what Drake creates isn't "music". It should go without saying why this argument is fatuous.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 15:31:55 2014 No.5671927 >>5671912 Drake's music is art, but that's another thing and I don't want to argue about that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 16:33:03 2014 No.5672240 Thread is going to 404, so here's a new thread for you two. >>5672237

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 19:32:19 2014 No.5673177 >>5666117 >>5666117 Thats just you being a dumbass. Can't be helped.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 2 20:08:18 2014 No.5673369 Migrate. >>5672237 >>5672237 >>5672237

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