/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5691117]

why do we need art?

why do we art?

[Anonymous No.5691131]

>>5691117
because without him, paul simon might never have got a break

[Anonymous No.5691137]

It's fun.

[Anonymous No.5691138]

>>5691131
My grandfather is Art.

[69 No.5691146]

>why do we art?
Posterity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ouXFKpPwjE

[Anonymous No.5691147]

>>5691146
that applies to science as well though, not just art

[69 No.5691168]

>>5691147
That's true.
Scientists stamping their surnames onto their discoveries.
That's very true.

[Anonymous No.5691178]

>>5691117
>why do we need art?
We don't "need" anything.

>why do we art?
Good question.

[Anonymous No.5691181]

>>5691178
> We don't "need" anything.

do you even hierarchy of needs

[Anonymous No.5691198]

>>5691117
To distract us from our miserable lifes.

[Anonymous No.5691203]

>>5691181
>do you even hierarchy of needs
You don't "need" those either, then you can die and all your needs are abolished.

I want the fuck out of them though.

[Anonymous No.5691206]

>>5691117
Knights of Faith BTFOed. This is the only correct response to such an order.

[Anonymous No.5691244]

>>5691206
no

[Anonymous No.5691320]

>>5691198
This is the only right answer

[Anonymous No.5691328]

To express the inexpressible.

[Anonymous No.5691342]

>>5691117
>The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless

[Anonymous No.5691346]

because we have an urge for something, even a fragment of that something, more beautiful than what we'll ever see around us.

[Anonymous No.5691352]

>>5691117
We don't, that's why art only gets popular when there is enough money to go around that dirty hippies painting while stoned become worth paying.

[Anonymous No.5691354]

>>5691346
>Art
>Beauty

Pick one, this isn't the 19th century anymore.

[Anonymous No.5691369]

>>5691352
where the fuck do you get those things from lmao

[Anonymous No.5691371]

>>5691354

> muh degeneracy and ugly art

[Anonymous No.5691376]

We don't need art. We have art because humans love patterns.

[Anonymous No.5691393]

Art doesn't exist if humans don't; humans don't exist if art doesn't.

[Anonymous No.5691435]

>>5691371
>Help me, thinking is hard!
Not that a good deal of 2avant4me art school stuff isn't bourgeois nihilism, but still.

[Anonymous No.5691446]

>>5691435

>2014
>still using bourgeois as a pejorative

1968 called they want their discourse back

[Anonymous No.5691448]

>>5691446
The future called, Hegel wants to speak with you

[Anonymous No.5691451]

>>5691371

>modern art
>literally into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.5691470]

the universal and innate need for self-expression, communication and understanding with others, and the appreciation/creation of beauty.

[Anonymous No.5691485]

>>5691451
>butthurt conservatives pretending to like art
Please, if fascism had won then all art museums would be fill with nothing but bland copies of Michelangelo's David and thousands of boat paintings.

[Anonymous No.5691486]

Hedonism / Self-obcession

[Anonymous No.5691490]

>>5691451

unthinking plebs need to shh and go back2pol

[Anonymous No.5691496]

Art is completely pointless, which is exactly why it's necessary.

[Anonymous No.5691504]

>>5691448

he said he was wrong about everything and that Kant did nothing wrong.

[Anonymous No.5691509]

>>5691496

What the fuck does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.5691515]

>>5691371
>>5691451

[Anonymous No.5691518]

>>5691485
Actually nazism was pretty into modernism and vanguards with the futurists and what not. The early 20th century was al about who had the best new art.
But it couldn't be the first time 4chan "reactionaries" fail to understand the context and ideas of 30's Germany.

[Anonymous No.5691521]

>>5691509

he's just plagiarizing Wilde and being an edgy teenager

[Anonymous No.5691523]

>>5691485
That would still be better than canned shit or a naked feminist plopping eggs out of her vagina.

[Anonymous No.5691524]

>>5691509
We need a distraction

[Anonymous No.5691525]

>>5691509

art is not bound to use value, unlike pretty much everything else in life. it doesn't HAVE to DO anything, it is purely free.

[Anonymous No.5691526]

>>5691518
anon
BTFO
T
F
O

[Anonymous No.5691530]

>>5691518

INCORRECT

they banned dada and all "degenerate" art. irony was that the dada exhibition got millions of viewers after it got banned, more than any other realist piece of shit exhibition.

[Anonymous No.5691537]

>>5691523
>All modern art is the three examples that people keep mentioning specially because they trigger my pleb sensibilities.
There si so much stuff that focusing on just the same examples over and over is an exercise on closing your ears and screaming a lot.

[Anonymous No.5691548]

>>5691530
So they also rejected futurism?
Is dada the only vanguard for you?
Germany is the origin of so many vaguards that going against the idea of art evolving and pushing limits is going against the German nation. They were pushing shit like absolute music since the 19th century and you think someone would be a true german by ignoring their own history?

[Anonymous No.5691553]

>>5691117
Artwork is where truth is at work.

[Anonymous No.5691560]

>>5691530

>1937 Dada exhibition
>200 works on display
>only 1 sold
>the exhibit lost money

Dada was shit then and what remains of it today is thrown in the trash by janitors.

[Anonymous No.5691564]

>>5691521
Not intentionally, I wasn't aware of the Wilde quote until I just Googled it right now. But yeah, what he said.
>>5691509
I think we as a society are overly concerned with justifying behavior by its end goal. We do not allow ourselves to think something is good or correct unless it advances our own station or betters society in some way. But art is not about teaching morals (anyone who claims it is probably likes shitty art). It's not about changing the world. It's about creating something aesthetically pleasing or evocative; it justifies itself and it is pointless. Art is what we do without having any reason to do it.

[Anonymous No.5691568]

>>5691548

yes, they did actually. futurism was a corruption of the natural form and was not suitable for an ideological representation of the "volk", unlike socialist realism which they stole from the Russians without saying as much.

considering it bore the torch of being the actual forward guard in terms of art at the time, yes dada was the only vanguard until surrealism.

it actually wasn't the origin of many things, they mostly were born in peripheral places like belgium or in bohemian enclaves separated from society.

wtf is a true german

>>5691560

>measuring art by commercial success

stay cool mr hirst

[Anonymous No.5691577]

>>5691568
>>measuring art by commercial success
>>measuring art by popular viewings

[Anonymous No.5691587]

>>5691564
I sort of agree with you but I think there are multiple levels to it. In the first level a work of art has to exist because it has to, I agree with that, there's no place for utilitarianism. But at a second level a work of art CAN do other things. For example, every work of art comments on its times, on the techniques in vogue, it can contain ideas of how life works for the author, and so on.

[Anonymous No.5691588]

>>5691553
>As long as we only imagine a pair of shoes in general, or simply look at the empty, unused shoes as they merely stand there in the picture, we shall never discover what the equipmental being of the equipment in truth is. From Van Gogh's painting we cannot even tell where these shoes stand. There is nothing surrounding this pair of peasant shoes in or to which they might belong—only an undefined space. There are not even clods of soil from the field or the field-path sticking to them, which would at least hint at their use. A pair of peasant shoes and nothing more. And yet.
>From the dark opening of the worn insides of the shoes the toilsome tread of the worker stares forth. In the stiffly rugged heaviness of the shoes there is the accumulated tenacity of her slow trudge through the far-spreading and ever-uniform furrows of the field swept by a raw wind. On the leather lie the dampness and richness of the soil. Under the soles stretches the loneliness of the field-path as evening falls. In the shoes vibrates the silent call of the earth, its quiet gift of the ripening grain and its unexplained self-refusal in the fallow desolation of the wintry field. This equipment is pervaded by uncomplaining worry as to the certainty of bread, the wordless joy of having once more withstood want, the trembling before the impending childbed and shivering at the surrounding menace of death. This equipment belongs to the earth, and it is protected in the world of the peasant woman. From out of this protected belonging the equipment itself rises to its resting-within-itself.
>But perhaps it is only in the picture that we notice all this about the shoes. The peasant woman, on the other hand, simply wears them. If only this simple wearing were so simple.

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

[Anonymous No.5691595]

>>5691568
I don't want to defend what a true german is, I doubt there can exist a true anything in terms of identities, I was just presenting a nationalistic ideal of being true to your country and how it can work together with ignoring your past.

I always felt dada was overvalued, all around the world similar things were appearing and kept existing without a direct connection with dada. It feels like a big Europe propaganda kind of thing.

[Anonymous No.5691604]

>>5691577

>popular viewings
>not unpopular viewings
>implying it affects the art itself

[Anonymous No.5691682]

>>5691587
I won't disagree with that. Aesthetics are ultimately personal--personally I like a lot of books that deal with social issues because that stuff interests me. But it's certainly not a requirement for it to deal with that stuff for it to be art.

[Anonymous No.5691686]

>>5691117
Why do we need to need something for it to be considered meaningful?

[Anonymous No.5691704]

>>5691181
Hierarchy of needs is horseshit

[Anonymous No.5691766]

Art should be about guiding the mind towards forms of the Good: beauty, virtue, truth, clarity.

[Anonymous No.5691772]

Expression of our unique human capabilities.

[Anonymous No.5691814]

>>5691117
>why do we need art?
we don't
>why do we art?
anxiety

Art is over, Hegel-style baby. now it is art without being bound to any purpose, just art: to express whatever an artist wishes. this is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.5691818]

>>5691604
>>5691588
>>5691814

[Anonymous No.5691823]

>>5691818
for what purpose

[Anonymous No.5691835]

>>5691823

this guy said it fine >>5691766

[Anonymous No.5691847]

>>5691835
not coming through for me

assuming that's even a definition of the purpose of art (it isn't), what does that have to do with the vague political beliefs of people on twitter and their appearances.

[Anonymous No.5691850]

check mate Ficino.

[Anonymous No.5691851]

>>5691847
>assuming that's even a definition of the purpose of art (it isn't), what does that have to do with the vague political beliefs of people on twitter and their appearances.

...

[Anonymous No.5691859]

We need art so that the heights of the human imagination can be concretized and shared: E.g., "funny name man goes down the toilet."

[Anonymous No.5691865]

>>5691859
>>5691859
>We need art so that the heights of the human imagination can be concretized and shared

Yep, that's part of it.

[Anonymous No.5691892]

>>5691203

Oh boy, we're going to play semantics games.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5691896]

>>5691244
Of course it is, you dumb clown.

That kind of filth-god deserves no worship.

[Anonymous No.5691930]

>>5691896
>>5691244

God would never test Hitchen's faith like that. The test really only works for someone like Abraham...or maybe a Kierkegaard.

Testing an atheists like that is just silly; what a goofy comic

[Anonymous No.5691943]

We need it and create it because life is monotonous, futile, and incredibly lonely and you can only whack it so many times in one day

[Anonymous No.5691958]

In the course of human evolution we developed a seep seated love for finding patterns, perhaps as a means of finding hidden prey and predators, allies and enemies. As we became more intelligent, created languages and societies we started looking for patterns and meaning in random shit. People love to see what isn't really there or maybe just might be there. We look for correlation and meaning where there is none and we like it like that

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5691960]

>>5691930
So you believe in an all knowing god?

Why would he even bother "testing" the guy if he knew he'd murder his own son to impress the big bully? This another Job story?

[This bible story was a catalyst to my dropping it. My dad scoffed at George C Scott's angst ridden performance, and claimed that he did it unwaveringly. Never sat right with me. Disgusting cult]

[Anonymous No.5691969]

>people still respond to butterfly's infantile interpretations of phil, scripture, and lit in general

why?

[Anonymous No.5691972]

>>5691206
>missing the point of fear and trembling

lol

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5691985]

>>5691969
I ask questions of anon in order to get some inclination of these things.

[Anonymous No.5691988]

>>5691985
sorry I was rude

[Anonymous No.5692007]

>>5691960
>Why would he even bother "testing" the guy

Because he's testing Abraham, God isn't testing his own powers of prophecy...

Actions and intentions matter, they have existential worth, so the test had to be carried out in "real time" not just in God's imagination.

The test was also not an isolated incident hidden from the world, it exists in scripture and for humanity to reflect on, so it had a bigger purpose as well.

>This another Job story?

Sort of.

[Anonymous No.5692028]

>>5691960
I though you were a better Butters but you still feel the need to derail threads with the same kind of anti christian discussion that you keep having. I don't get why do you get so autist with that topic, no one is being converted and you aren't getting anything from it. Just shut up and let people you don't like go away.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5692052]

>>5691518
Futurism was more strongly associated with fascism than Nazism. Nazis were basically philistines, but the fascists had an artistic, literary and philosophical movement in Italy.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5692063]

>>5692007
>it exists in scripture and for humanity to reflect on
That's all it is. A story to instill fear and obedience.
>Job
That was just a sick bet with satan

>>5692028
>a better Butters
I have always been me.
>why do you get so autist with that topic
It is an autistic topic.
>and let people you don't like go away.
They never do.

Art>religion

[Anonymous No.5692080]

>>5692063
If art is bigger than religion why do you have to shit on the art thread? It was going completely religion free until you showed up, auntie.

[Anonymous No.5692083]

>>5692052
It's sad that Mussolini was the fascist ruler that had more of his shit together and he still got screwed all around. Franco was the worst and he lasted the longest somehow.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5692084]

>>5692052
The Nazis were fascists.
Yes, Italy was the home of Futurism

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5692091]

>>5692063
>That was just a sick bet with satan
No, Satan is the DA in the Old Testament, it's not really a bet, Christians who don't realize Satan wasn't against God in the Old Testament just think that.

Satan's job is convince God humanity is shit. God came to this conclusion himself earlier, that's why he flooded the world. That wasn't merely a punishment for action, it was that humans are always imagining and fantasizing about being wicked, which God, who does not have an unconscious, finds repulsive. Then at the end he realizes that man is evil from the day of his birth, it's not something people choose, and so he makes a distinction between that and willful evil. But according to Satan, every man would be willfully evil too, under the right circumstances, and people are only kind or love God when things are going their way. Job isn't just about Job, he's a representative of humanity.

[Anonymous No.5692097]

>>5692052
>"Nazis were basically philistines"

wtf?

>made sure every citizen had a radio
>promoted legendary music like mozart, wagner, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms to actually enrich their culture and maintain a heritage

>Audio technology using magnetic tape was a Third Reich invention.
>Triumph of the Will -- one of the most important revolutions in cinematographic history...

>The Nazi style of uniform and SS panzer outfits were noted for their unique and bold styles, Vonnegut called them "theatrical"... Russel brand recently admitted they looked ‘"fucking fantastic"
>Adidas, puma, Hugo Boss founded by Nazis
>Nazi architecture was also impressive and gigantic in scope

[Anonymous No.5692101]

>>5692097
>Let's gas the kikes!
>Great Idea!

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5692102]

>>5692080
I misjudged the length of the thread I opened.
OPs do this all the time. Sometimes the picture draws its own conversation.
I regret, but meh.

[Anonymous No.5692104]

>>5692063
>>Job
>That was just a sick bet with satan
That's the stupidest most south park interpretation there is.
The point of Job's story is that even if god is against you there is no point in blaiming him for each thing that happens in the life of each person. Job was right for stay faithful because the point of religion shouldn't be getting material things out of it, it's to teach the jews to be less jewy. Which implies to accept anything that comes to you since the contrary is also true and if you have stuff it's not thanks to god but your own circumstances.

[Anonymous No.5692109]

>>5692101

No evidence of such an idea exists and no evidence of gassing any jews exists either.

[Anonymous No.5692117]

>>5692101

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uwHOKhB8bc&


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtlPlZGvgY0

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5692122]

>>5692091
Oh yeah. That interpretation. It must not have sat well with my sect. The fallible god and all that. w/e

>>5692104
That's a shit interpretation too

>>5692109
Fuck off nazi

[Anonymous No.5692127]

>>5692102
As long as you understand how it can be bothersome to see someone complain about religion when they're the one bringing it up it's all good.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5692141]

>>5692104
That's partially the point, but you're really only scratching the surface. It's not a question of being religious FOR material things, it's a question of prosperity as a condition for goodness. A lot of people went through horrible things like Job did in ancient times, many of them didn't evidently deserve it, Ecclesiastes talks a lot about that. It's a question of what makes people righteous. Satan contends that Job's righteousness is not because he's a good person, but just because he's done very well for himself. Job isn't just a regular good person, he's extremely wealthy. He didn't necessarily get that prosperity as a result of his faith, but Satan is saying it's easy to be righteous and faithful when everything is going your way.

[Anonymous No.5692156]

>>5692141

I never understood how Christian apologists always go back to "free-will" to justify God's inaction in the world, as if interfering with the world would counter free-will or someshit.

But when we look in the Old Testament that's what he does constantly, he was fucking with Pharaoh and the egyptians non stop, he was fucking with all sorts of individuals and groups.

So when some crazy asshole kidnaps a girl and tortures her for 20 years in a basement, I don't get how they can fall back on this "muh free-will" argument...

God was throwing plagues and fire storms on people who he goofed up all the time, or turning them into pillars of salt, etc.

[Anonymous No.5692191]

>>5692109

get the fuck out

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5692214]

>>5692156
The morality God expected people to follow changed a lot with Jesus, as did God's valuation of people in general. As I said before, prior to the deluge, God considered thoughts to be willful sinning, and so in his eyes everyone way willfully evil. After the flood, he considered man to be inherently evil, man's only excuse was that he had no choice, therefore God did not consider people as free moral agents and he intervened a lot. When Jesus arrives on the scene, God restores the idea of humans as entities of free will in conjunction with forgiveness, and therefore thoughts become sin once again, but you can be forgiven for them.

Compare this with Hegel's Philosophy of History, and why Jesus was instrumental in the evolution of free will. As Hegel says, we are have incomplete will, a lot of our 'will' is an illusion and we are the unconscious instruments of others, but over the course of history we have become more and more self conscious, with reason and Christ playing key parts in this transformation.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5692215]

[Anonymous No.5692237]

>>5692215
>Can't even make round arms
Michelangelo is loling in his grave.

[Anonymous No.5692332]

>>5691117
Epic image OP, saved.

[Anonymous No.5692364]

>>5691958
Doesn't seem like it would've started as a love for patterns, more like a need or inevitably. Its how reality is set up

[Anonymous No.5692550]

>>5691892
Well it's that or sperg about Nazism or Christianity, apparently.

Given the OP, a semantics game is best-case scenario.

[Anonymous No.5692625]

>>5692214
>The morality God expected people to follow changed a lot with Jesus, as did God's valuation of people in general. As I said before, prior to the deluge, God considered thoughts to be willful sinning, and so in his eyes everyone way willfully evil. After the flood, he considered man to be inherently evil, man's only excuse was that he had no choice, therefore God did not consider people as free moral agents and he intervened a lot. When Jesus arrives on the scene, God restores the idea of humans as entities of free will in conjunction with forgiveness, and therefore thoughts become sin once again, but you can be forgiven for them.

What's this theory based on? It doesn't sound Christian or biblical at all. This idea that God changed his perception of what humans are, or human nature changing pre and post flood...

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5692715]

>>5692625
First off, mankind is not capable of evil until the Garden of Eden, because he has no knowledge of evil. But capacity for evil does not mean one must be evil, but at the time God included evil thoughts and desires under the definition of evil, which Adam and Eve also weren't capable of before eating the fruit of knowledge (of good and evil).

When God plans to flood the world, it's because of evil of the mind.

>And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
-Genesis, 6: 5

When it's all over, and God decides never to flood the world again, it's because of the following reasoning

>And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
-Genesis, 8: 21

The reason he gives NOT to flood the world again is apparently the reason that he actually flooded it in the first place, unless you take into account the word 'youth'; God says that people have wicked thoughts INHERENTLY, from the time they can actually think, so he no longer holds them accountable.

Now for the rest of Bible he no longer considers thoughts sins, except coveting, but that is beyond a normal thought. UNTIL Christ comes along and restores sin of the mind, meaning God once again holds people accountable for that. But now he also doesn't consider them useful for disciplining each other: all throughout the Old Testament, God uses to people to punish other people, he views people like advanced animals, they feel from their state of grace in Eden. They are only restored to that state with Christ, who says the bit about the first stone: people are no longer just an advanced animal, so they cannot carry out God's wrath like a regular tool would. Remember that God didn't allow David to build his temples, because David had too much blood on his hands, even though all the bloodshed was ordered by God. Now all people are moral agents, so if they act it must be consistent with their thought sins, not just with God's (who has none). So they can no longer be agents of wrath, they have free will.

If you want a close examination of this evolution, without involving supernatural, again see Hegel's Philosophy of History, which explains how Christ affected our understanding of freedom and development of PERSONAL morality, the rule of conscience instead of rite.

[Anonymous No.5692806]

>>5692097

>burned books

[Anonymous No.5692822]

>>5692715
So, was it part of god's plan that Eve and Adam would turn out to disobey him? Like isn't he supposed to be "All-knowing"?

[Anonymous No.5692826]

>>5692715

Ah yes, you must obviously speak Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin, and have studied all the Jewish sages and Church Fathers and Biblical scholars and are thus qualified to tell anons what the Bible is all about

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5692831]

>>5692822
It was and it wasn't. God knew Adam and Eve would eat the fruit, he designed them in a way that they'd have both have naivete to be duped, and the capacity to disobey him. But that doesn't mean he wanted them to do so, of itself; he wanted them to have the option to. He might also have wanted them to do it because of later plans that would require it, but not as an end of its own.

[Anonymous No.5692840]

>>5692806


much of it was porn created by Jews, anti-german propaganda, communist bullshit, jewish bolshevick philosophies, degerenate art, etc.

Plus it was not uncommon for countries to ban books during those years...US censored catcher in the rye heavily until the 80s, grapes of wrath was banned in the 40s...Canada banned lolita...etc

[Anonymous No.5692858]

>>5692715

I'm not buying any of this. Nice mental gymnastics but you're reaching for things that just aren't in the text.

[Anonymous No.5692906]

>>5692840

>me and my beerhall buddies are experts on art and literature

hitler wouldn't know good art if it fell down the roof of the fuhrerbunker in 1945, that's why the austrians wouldn't let him into art academy

[Anonymous No.5692928]

>>5692906

Hitler applied to the Painting faculty, unfortunately, but his real passion and flare was architecture. Even the head of the faculty told him his style was more suited for architecture---but he didn't have the right pre-reqs for architecture school at the time.

Hitler liked good art, not crappy art. Some people like crap art, he had higher ideals and hopes for Germany.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5692946]

>>5692906
>The only good liberal is a dead one
>picture of knife through hammer and sickle

[Anonymous No.5692952]

>>5691206
>BEING THIS WRONG, NOT EVEN READING F&T
HAAAAAAAAAHWAAAAAAAAW

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5692953]

>>5692928
Nazi ideological aesthetics were superb, but most of those came from professionals other than Hitler, and wasn't really any Nazi art apart from propaganda.

[Anonymous No.5692954]

>>5692928

>he had higher ideals and hopes for Germany

too bad he also had a "flare" for invading innocent countries aggravated by faulty military logic. by the time he was finished fucking up his country was split in two and occupied by soldiers "undeserving of life" Guess those Slavs weren't so lowly after all.

he should have stuck to fancy parades and boot polishing

[Anonymous No.5692955]

>>5691892

It's not semantics, it's telling it like it is. You don't "need" anything because you don't "need" to fucking exist in the first place, nothing and no one does. You must first "want", then you "need" things to fulfill that desire, but desire comes first.

It's like when people say they "have to" do shit. "I have to work", no you don't fucking have to, you could quit and go starve in the streets right now, you just don't want to for various reasons.

Mind. Over. Matter

[Anonymous No.5692959]

>>5692946

>liberal
>hammer and sickle

Why are rightists such uneducated hacks?

[Anonymous No.5692961]

>>5692954
>invading innocent countries aggravated by faulty military logic

blaze up nigga, u high as fuck

[Anonymous No.5692965]

>>5692961

you're high as fuck!

[Anonymous No.5692966]

>>5691371
but they did "throw out" classical art which is why not much of it really exists anymore and there are so many fragmented remains

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5692969]

>>5692959
>fascism
>Swastika
Why are leftists such uneducated hacks?

[Anonymous No.5692973]

>>5692969

>the history of the swastika design negates its association with one of the most notorious political movements in history
>muh "national socialism is leftist politics" bullshit argument

Please

[Anonymous No.5692976]

>>5692969
>>5692973

oh, and yes, due to fascism (and the Italian Social Republics) close association with the Third Reich, the swastika gets to represent fascism in propaganda as well, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.5692979]

>>5692976
>>5692973
>>5692973
>most notorious political movements in history

modern propaganda is strong

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5692983]

>>5692976
The USSR was the most important member of the Allies, therefore liberalism can be represented by the hammer and sickle.

[Anonymous No.5692984]

>>5692979
What do you expect from blue pilled tumblr readers who are probably still drinking government tap water?

[Anonymous No.5692986]

>>5691117
Do we need a reason for art?

[Anonymous No.5692989]

>>5692979

*One of the

How can your reading comprehension be so shitty if you hang out on /lit/? Or are you arguing that fascism, and German national socialism in particular, are not notorious ideologies? Communism makes that list too, obviously, which is why I said "one of the most notorious" and not "THE most notorious".

[Anonymous No.5692990]

>>5692984
>still drinking government tap water?

serious question, should I buy filters?

[Anonymous No.5692995]

The proper purpose of art is to decorate religious ceremonies. When the culture degenerates and the rituals lose their meaning you are left with meaningless "art for art's sake".

[Anonymous No.5692997]

>>5692990
serious question, why haven't you? You will feel much better and think much clearer once your system is cleared.

[Anonymous No.5693004]

>>5692997

I'm in western canada, and apparently we have really clean mountain water according to the local government.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5693010]

>>5692979
He is right, though, you clearly just don't know what the word 'notorious' means.

[Anonymous No.5693011]

>>5692989

>One of the most notorious
>One of the

I still disagree with this assessment

[Anonymous No.5693015]

>>5693010

It's notorious superficially, of course. But I think he meant it was notorious substantially, as something inherently negative underneath the surface.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5693020]

>>5693015
Nothing can be inherently notorious anymore than something can be 'famous' beneath the surface.

[Anonymous No.5693026]

>>5693020

Well notoriety is usually gained when an entity does a bad deed and becomes famous for it, or when they gain fame for a bad deed they didn't commit.

The former version speaks to underlying character, the latter version speaks to the populace's perception.

The word "inherent" might be too strong.

[Anonymous No.5693032]

>>5692122
Hi, butters! Your shitposting intensified recently. Did you loose your job or something?

[Anonymous No.5693034]

>>5693032
>loose your job
>loose

Uhh not even gonna reply to this trite.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5693036]

>>5693026
Hitler would be notorious regardless of whether nor not the Holocaust occurred, at least for a couple of hundred years, minimum.

[Anonymous No.5693038]

>>5693034
English is not my first language. Stop oppressing me!

[Anonymous No.5693040]

>>5691117
>why do we need art?

Who ever said we needed art?

>why do we art?

To derive pleasure from it

[Anonymous No.5693043]

>>5693036

Notorious by bad deed or by false perception?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5693056]

>>5693043
Bad deeds don't exist without human perception, imbecile, there is no element known as 'bad' on the periodic table.

[Anonymous No.5693063]

>>5693056

Well neither is "notorious" on the periodic table.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5693068]

>>5693063
No, hence why the idea of something being 'inherently' notorious makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.5693071]

>>5693068
>>5693068
>makes no sense.

to you.

[Anonymous No.5693073]

>>5691117

Art is the mirror through which humanity can observe the condition of its soul.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5693075]

>>5693071
Neither does a four sided triangle make sense to me.

[Anonymous No.5693117]

>>5693075

limited human imagination/reasoning.

[Anonymous No.5693120]

>>5692955
you're a fucking idiot.

let's assume 'need' actually means something in between 'choose' and 'can't avoid obeying laws of physics'

[Anonymous No.5693123]

>>5691564
>>5691525

How is art somehow magically devoid of value? We assign it value like we do anything else. Creating anything comes at some form of cost, and that cost is, at a minimum, applied to the work of art in raw materials or time spent.

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who hasn't been influenced in some way by art. How can anyone claim art is pointless if it has a lasting impact on most people?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5693189]

>>5693120
In that case, your question would be better phrased as 'what is art needed for?' In which case the answer is personal and cultural expression. If you ask what expression needed for, it's commonly a part of psychological well being, but aside from that you might as well ask what life is needed for.

[Anonymous No.5693191]

Art is the soul, friends. All of us are artists in small little ways in fact, just a lot of us hardly realise.

[Anonymous No.5693878]

>>5693123
OK, well if you're of the mind that "everything we do we do to pursue value," then art isn't going to magically be the exception, you're right about that. But despite being very popular in economics and mainstream thought, that's a very unscientific view (unfalsifiable in the Popperian sense), and doesn't even answer any major issues so much as it shifts the questions: if we're always value- or utility-maximizing, what gives us those utility or value judgments?

Unless you want to arbitrarily re-assign your ideas of value to the pursuit of art, what makes art interesting is exactly that it's pursued doggedly irrespective of its economic or social value.

[Anonymous No.5693900]

>>5691117
>why do we art?
Because someone discovered agriculture and now we have too much spare time

[Anonymous No.5693935]

>>5693900
>Forgetting the Pre-Agriculturites

[Anonymous No.5694059]

>>5692961
not wanting to derail further but can someone link to some good info on this

[Anonymous No.5694175]

>>5691117
>tfw can never rise above telos
>tfw not one with god, for even a moment
>tfw a precursor to all the fedoras

[Anonymous No.5694495]

>>5693935
March with the Magdalenians

[Anonymous No.5696224]

>>5691766
a normative virtue ethicist claim?

[Anonymous No.5696238]

>>5693073
Art is the mirror through which society can glance at an ideal version of itself

[Anonymous No.5696243]

>>5691146
http://youtu.be/Y34jC4I1m70?t=4m57s

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5696251]

>>5692084
>The Nazis were fascists.
No, they weren't, not anymore than the fascists were Nazis.

[Anonymous No.5696789]

>>5691371
you know /pol/ may be stupid, but all the modern art stuff wouldn't have occurred during, say, the Depression
Degeneracy really is a thing

[Anonymous No.5696801]

>>5696238

But a lot of artists use their work to mock the society they live in.

[Anonymous No.5696802]

>>5691371
>reading the article
>one of these was worth
>Artist: Martin Kippenburger
>spokesperson: Papajewski

[Anonymous No.5696811]

>>5692080
>>5692091
>>5692104
You're enablers
especially you >>5693032

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5697555]

>>5696251
>The tea party aren't Republicans

[Anonymous No.5699069]

>>5692091
>>5692715
>God came to this conclusion himself earlier
>Then at the end he realizes that man is evil from the day of his birth
>God decides never to flood the world again
Your entire argument seems based on the premise that God second guesses himself throughout human history, which is a little laughable for an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being.

[Anonymous No.5699099]

>>5696251
I hate you for this post
not for the Information contained but for the style
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.5699451]

>>5696789
>all the modern art stuff wouldn't have occurred during, say, the Depression
>who is duchamp

modern art basically started in the depression era, shit head

[Anonymous No.5699458]

>>5699069
But not so much for a conceptual construction. Couldn't you move on from the "lol, god isn't in the clouds!" face¿

[Anonymous No.5699462]

>>5699451
What?
You're funny anon!