[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 72 KB, 600x600, kfc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6077856 No.6077856[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Should advertisements be considered an art form?

>> No.6077859

>>6077856
They include art, but they are not art themselves.

>> No.6077861

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulin_Rouge:_La_Goulue

>> No.6077862

>>6077856
All art is in the eye of the beholder. Anything can be considered art

>> No.6077864
File: 71 KB, 399x542, absinthe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6077864

>> No.6077866

>>6077862
incorrect

>> No.6077868

>>6077862
this.


God that looks good. You have just helped me decide my lunch. Thanks OP.

>> No.6077870

>>6077862
go meme somewhere else

>> No.6077873
File: 93 KB, 251x245, i was born.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6077873

>>6077862
>all-inclusive lower middle class views of art

the sign of a true pleb

>> No.6077879

Is my poops art????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

>> No.6077882

>>6077866
>>6077870
well can you explain why its incorrect? You personally don't believe art is subjective?

>> No.6077887

>>6077882
if i personally don't mind the taste of shit does that mean it's not shit?

>> No.6077895

>>6077882
Your definition of art includes the whole of reality and thus is not a definition. Read more. Your juvenile and limited understanding of art needs not be spread around on the internet.

>> No.6077898

>>6077862
There are objective values that make something art. You can't just claim anything is art, it has to follow certain objective aesthetic guidelines. You are a moron if you can't tell the difference between say the Mona Lisa and some shitty 2 color Rothko painting that a 4 year old could make.

>> No.6077902

>>6077870
>list of all of tallis' replies
[ ] Go back to reddit
[X] nice meme
[ ] You're wrong
[ ] LOL/LMAO
[X] generic shitpost
[ ] guise look how much i just read on wikipedia

That's all of them.

>> No.6077904

>>6077856
it depends:
http://youtu.be/zff9hVH3ptY

>> No.6077907

>>6077882
the definition of art is not subjective.

>b-but there a lot of contradictory definitions that differ slightly!
which doesn't mean you can just ignore all of them and claim that everything is art. faggot.

>> No.6077908

>>6077887
>"If I don't like something thats ugly does it mean its not ugly"

The fuck does that even mean

>> No.6077915

>>6077895
define art for us then

>> No.6077916

Some of them are

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFGwSL-H_B0

>> No.6077922

>>6077866
>>6077873

I think he's correct. More than anything else, art is defined by the context of being presented or interpreted as art. In my opinion, either one of those are the only requirement. Art constantly defies boundaries.

>>6077879

People frequently bring up scatological subjects when discussing art but never justify why depicting such things cannot be artistic. Yes, shitting is intuitively crude and gross, we get it. Art does not have to be about happiness and beauty, it encompasses the whole spectrum of human feelings.

>> No.6077927

Oxford dictionary defines art as: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:

Doesn't that mean anything created by humans can be considered art?

>> No.6077929

>>6077895
I cannot tip my fedora enough good sir

>> No.6077934

>>6077895
thats just your opinion, you don't get to pick and choose what makes something objective or not.

>> No.6077974

>>6077927
Yes

>> No.6077977

>>6077915
My definition excludes lower forms of art, and does not attempt at encompassing what contemporary lower culture considers as art: /was it not to be foreseen that the highest and most serious task of art --- to take away one's gaze from the horror of darkness and spare the "subject" the torments of the convulsion of Will, by the salutary balm of appearence, --- would come to degenerate to be nothing but an occasion for pleasure, a means to frivolous entertainment?/

/In no artistic times did the alleged intellectual culture and true art be as estranged to each other, as divergent as today. We now understand why [our] weak culture hates true art: it fears in true art its own destruction./

Art is a formless eternal justification of existence, bound and circumscribed in the radiant glorification of appearance.

>> No.6077988

>>6077934
I did not do that. I simply said that his definition of art includes the whole of reality, and thus is not a definition, on a logical level; a definition attempts to form a smaller set within which some things are contained; his definition does not produce a set, and obviously not a smaller one.

That would be like saying "art is the whole perceived universe" as a definition, which is obviously not a definition, as it does not /define/ anything.

>> No.6077994

>>6077977
Reading this definition again sounds pompous; I translated it from the Birth of Tragedy, and god damn is it heavy.

>> No.6077997

>>6077988
define reality

>> No.6078001
File: 138 KB, 600x496, 1408395995612.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6078001

No:
- It doesn't function as art in society.
- It doesn't exist just for the sake of it.

Yes:

- Advertisements are not art only for those who think that the word "art" is itself valuing, which is wrong.
- Many artefacts from the past which were made only to convince others about some ideas or politics, or were just commercial in nature are considered art now.
- For someone outside of capitalism and western culture ads would be art as anything else that would depict something. Without the context it's hard to distinguish a normal "art" image from an ad.

>> No.6078020

>>6077977
>Art is a formless eternal justification of existence, bound and circumscribed in the radiant glorification of appearance.
So anything that rejects the justification of existence and doesn't glorify appearance is not art?

>> No.6078033

>>6078020
Yes, exactly. You probably don't realize how well you just expressed it!

It is actually a fucking great definition.

>> No.6078068
File: 55 KB, 319x472, LaGuitarraAzul.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6078068

>>6078033
So a day in the life of Ivan Denisovich, In the Penal Colony, Most of Cormac McCarthy's works would all be considered genre fiction?

The blues is not musical art?

pic related, Picasso is a hack?

There are thousands of examples that don't meet your definition.

>> No.6078104

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDE4VX_9Kk

>> No.6078156

i think that hot dog might be art

>> No.6078199
File: 460 KB, 560x781, tsukimiya_ringo by kusayusaai.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6078199

>>6078001
I sort of liked your items except:
> Many artefacts from the past which were made only to convince others about some ideas or politics, or were just commercial in nature are considered art now.
I can only think of french revolution propaganda, but even then there's a pretty clear message that trumps the work as soon as you go a bit in depth. What did you have in mind for this idea?

Also
>For someone outside of capitalism and western culture ads would be art as anything else that would depict something. Without the context it's hard to distinguish a normal "art" image from an ad.
That's pretty post-modern of you, in a nice way.

>> No.6078211

>>6078156
The fact that there is a very limited amount would had made Adorno doubt it for a second.

>> No.6078218

>>6077977
So then is a beautiful sight of nature a work of art, given that it matches your definition?

>> No.6078232

>>6078218
It doesn't match my definition, though

>>6078068
I don't see any link between your examples and my definition of art and how they should be genre fiction

>> No.6078243

>>6078218
I'm not that anon.

During the 1700's personal landscape parks were seen as the maximum definiton of art because it mixed human production with natural beauty and property. For Hume art had to generate a desire to be the only one who could own it.
Definitons of art are meaningless because it's not a meassurable object but an spontaneous feeling, it exists in time in our perception, Heidegger used the term dasein to express that and leave idealist tier bullshit behind.

>> No.6078264

>>6078232
>i don't see any link
you wouldn't would you?
None of those works glorify existence or appearance. Rather the complete opposite. Your definition is one dimensional and whoever you plagiarized it from would be ashamed of you.

Take your trip off.
Kill yourself.

>> No.6078271

>>6078264
Perhaps you should read more and understand what the terms I used meant, and what appearance signified in this context...!

>> No.6078291

>>6078271
Maybe you should demonstrate what you meant and why he's wrong instead of vaguely insinuating he misunderstood you with no clarification, faggot.

>> No.6078299

>>6078291
The concepts I used are explained in there

http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Nietzsche-The-Birth-of-Tragedy.pdf

enjoy the read!

>> No.6078334

>>6078271
It must be nice to know that even without your thesaurus raping rhetoric and your skimmed wikipedia criticisms you can feel like you've won any argument by invoking the phrase "read moar"

>> No.6078337

>>6078299
If I wanted a book recommendation, I'd browse the wikia or start a thread. You're just throwing a link around so that the onus is on your opponent to discover independently why you're wrong by sifting through a huge volume of text. Nietzsche is an author famous for often being philosophically opaque, a murky river from which you have fished your red herring. Any decent person would highlight the relevant sections of the text in question and explain why they show him to have been misunderstood. You'll literally do anything to avoid addressing opposing points won't you, you little tripfag bitch?

>> No.6078351

>>6078337
>>6078334
I am not responsible for your lack of culture preventing you from arguing with me. The fact is that I'm using concepts you don't know, and you still want to argue, without reading the texts explaining such concepts in detail. You are literally alike someone wanting to discuss Milton without reading it, and then getting mad at others for having read Milton.

>> No.6078389

>>6078351
Yes, because you're the one defending the concepts supposedly contained within the novel, a book that the thread is not centered around and that not everyone involved in the subject of aesthetics can be automatically expected to be acquainted with. If you want to bring up Nietzsche's concept of art and demonstrate why it's correct (which is funny, because Nietzsche denied objective truth in the first place) you're meant to take the knowledge of what you have learned and place it in the discussion so that it supports your point of view relative to the OP. This is not a difficult concept. Even here, you're dodging the issue again and saying "durr, you guys are uncultured because you haven't read one specific book, it's not my fault that you're mentally inferior plebs." Given that you demonstrate absolutely no knowledge of the text in question and can't justify how it relates to the discussion, I'd be very surprised if you'd read it yourself. It's pure name dropping at this point.

>> No.6078405

>>6078351
>I'm the only person alive who has read the birth of tragedy and understood it.

That's how dumb you sound. If you ever go to college or university or have a real debate on a medium thats isn't a himalayan haircut sharing board you will be asked to flesh out your ideas. Ideas you have had independently and not badly quoted from entry level philosophers. If you are refuted you will have to logically deconstruct criticism without crying about how nobody understands you. You may be an extremly elaborate troll account in which case 10/10 I raged hard. or you are pompous idiot who is universally regarded as a retarded pedant and everything thats wrong with our generation. Every thread you comment in people explain this to you and I think you should try to think about your life and why people have such negative reactions to you.

>> No.6078425

>>6078389
>If you want to bring up Nietzsche's concept of art and demonstrate why it's correct (which is funny, because Nietzsche denied objective truth in the first place)
ultra kek

>Given that you demonstrate absolutely no knowledge of the text in question and can't justify how it relates to the discussion, I'd be very surprised if you'd read it yourself.
I don't feel any responsibility about explaining the text to you.

>>6078405
I never implied your greentext.

Again, I am not responsible for your lack of culture. Don't expect everyone to explain what you don't understand to you. If you cannot partake in a particular discussion due to your lack of knowledge on a particular subject, there is no need to lose your shit over it.

>> No.6078431
File: 209 KB, 1024x753, 1422260038519.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6078431

>>6078199
>What did you have in mind for this idea?
Examples:
Political: Narmer's Palette
Commercial: Golden age Dutch painting

> That's pretty post-modern of you, in a nice way.
Thank you.

>> No.6078437

>>6078425
>Only reads the introductions to Wikipedia articles

>> No.6078454

>>6078425
Your'e not even reading my responses anymore are you? You are sitting there typing our infinite variations of the phrase "Read more." this is the debate equivalent of running away. I read The birth of tragedy and I didn't come up with your definition of Art. You would maintain that you're subjectively right regardless of inability to construct an argument or cohesive thesis that stands up to criticism. This is what leads me to think you have a megalomaniacal narcissistic disorder. What text can you link me to to refute that?

>> No.6078456

There is no definite definition to art. Its just a human concept based on an ever changing human culture. Its fluid enough that basically anything can be considered art.

>> No.6078466

The quality of art in itself cannot be estimated, you can only analyze the type of art that one enjoys to determine their health and values.

The creation of a piece of art is the moment that the creator's spirit has grown too profound for introspection and must release either a sigh or a Yes. Sighs are ugly, praise the ascetic and the resignation of the will, ecstacy, and sublimity. Yeses are the opposite, for they say Yes.

>>6078218
Nature creates the forms which men perceive. Art is created when a man's soul has grown sufficiently profound due to natue's forms to the point where he must make an utterance.

>>6078068
No, because those are beautiful pieces of art. Beautiful art cannot negate life because their very operation of beautifying reality affirms in, regardless of the tragic aspects contained within.

>> No.6078470

>>6078454
I literally brought together Nietzsche's quotes on musical and plastic art from chapter 15 to 17 in a single quote, while including one from chapter 19.

You may find these by reading the text, using the link I posted before.

>> No.6078483

Can the contents of what you see through a window frame be considered art? like if it was purposely positioned to overlook something that looked pleasing yet wasn't interfered with by humans.

>> No.6078496

>>6078483
Did you create what the window is showing? If not, then no. Art is creation.

>> No.6078515

>>6078466
Isn't tragedy inherently beautiful?

>> No.6078528

>>6078515
Yes, because the tragic aspects and encased in beautiful art. Like I said.

>> No.6078535

>>6078528
are*

>> No.6078554

>>6077856
I now want a fried chicken hotdog. Not gonna stop there tho. I want chili on it and sauerkraut. Fuck yellow mustard tho. I want Dijon mustard and some franks red hot on it. I want it to burn more as it comes out than it goes in.

>> No.6078556

>>6078496
>Art is creation
>Underlying principles of nature created both the scene beyond the window and the means for the window to come into existence
>Viewer is also intrinsically tied to these principles (or whatever you'd like to refer to them as)
>Nature is an artist

>> No.6078563

>>6078515
The tragic is not beautiful; its basic element is the ugly, the difform, the evil, --- yet turning these elements into art make all of the more terrible aspects of existence appear as aesthetic play.

>> No.6078575

>>6077895
>read more
so read and get an idea of what other "credible" people think is art? this is a stupid fucking argument. anything can be art. You may not like that idea, i certainly don't like it, but thats just the way it is.

>> No.6078582

>>6077898
flawed argument. both are still art and one cannot be objectively be judged as better than the other. Art does not have to follow any "certain objective aesthetic guidelines." are you fucking stupid? jesus christ

>> No.6079579

>>6078582
yes it does. if something looks like shit, it is shit and can't be considered art

>> No.6079608

>Disappointed
All twenty one of you had better have reported this thread by now.

>> No.6079647

>>6079608
Why? We are discussing philosophy, which is what the board is based on.

>> No.6079683

>>6079608
just hide the thread if you don't like it. The world doesn't have to cater to your every opinion