/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6083934]

Is discussion of art criticism literature?

Really, it is? How come I get banned every single time I want to talk about the travesty that is (post)modern art? Pic related, it's me obliterating common defenses of (post)modern art.

[Anonymous No.6084041]

Strange...

[Anonymous No.6084053]

it is, so long as you back up your criticism with actual art criticism lit and don't keep referring to piss christ and performance art as the essence of art after 1900

also your image is trash

[Anonymous No.6084090]

mein gott pure ideology

[Anonymous No.6084135]

>>6083934
oh wow, some asshole on 4chan is right and countless museums, curators, collectors, historians, and artists around the world have just been BTFO. thank god you posted, anon.

[Anonymous No.6084144]

Why can't any human expression be art?

[Anonymous No.6084148]

>>6084144
Art has to be of a high quality and support non-degenerate values.

[Anonymous No.6084155]

>>6084148
Why? What if I say 'art has to be abstract and support free love'?

[Anonymous No.6084159]

>>6084148
realism is degeneracy anon

[Anonymous No.6084192]

>>6083934
Your image is so blinkered and limited in perspective. Yeah photography had something to do with the collapse of 'realism' as a viable stye but it's still just a fragment of the broad historical forces that changed the nature of living in the world and consequently art. Your supposedly 'objective' standards that art can still be held to are arbitrary and ridiculous, except for all of those which modern and contemporary art are held to anyway. No good contemporary or modern artist thinks that art is 'purely subjective'; that's ridiculous and a pathetic caricature of the construction of meaning and the experience of modern life. Most of your image relies on these weak and superficial caricatures. Like seriously, holding impressionism up as a successful example of 'non-realist' artwork? Good job on keeping up with the most unthinking mass cultural valuation of the possibilities of art - you're the type at the end of the 19th century who would have dismissed Maeterlinck out of hand and would have thought himself totally avant-garde for being a booster of Victor Hugo because he wrote about poor people. All in all you get a 0/10 for being a self-congratulatory mouthpiece of the most thoughtless popular idea of art possible and then you get a further 5 points subtracted for actually believing you're saying something original and 'edgy' while you're at it.

[Anonymous No.6084199]

>>6083934
1. no, most art threads are deleted
2. you're not looking for a discussion, you're just spamming your image to the front page. spamming is against the rules
3. you're full of shit.

i might try to make a reply to your pic. but this thread will probably be deleted by the time i could write anything and you are already convinced of your position. it would be pointless to try and change your mind.

[Anonymous No.6084386]

>>6084192
>>6084199
Why are you guys so blatantly ignorant of the truth? Why do you need shit art to be considered "good" so badly?

[Anonymous No.6084398]

>>6084386
prove it's shit

[Anonymous No.6084415]

>>6084398
You're telling you why I want you to prove pic related is shit? Are you an annoying retard?

[Anonymous No.6084428]

>>6084415
why that picture in particular? you brought that picture into the conversation after i asked you to prove it's shit, which was after you saying it was shit. i don't think you were referring to that picture from the beginning so don't try that amateur shit around here son

prove every single piece of art produced after 1900 is shit

[Anonymous No.6084453]

>>6084428
My claim is that most of art that is labeled "(post)modern" is shit.

Then I posted a typical piece of shit (post)modern piece.

Here is another piece of shit (post)modern "piece" that is featured in most art-history textbooks--"The Dinner Party"

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

It is a triangle table arrangement with vaginas all over it.

It's by Judy Chicago, a daughter of a jewish rabbi.

I say it's shit because it's vulgar, of little artistic merit, stupid, immature, and disgusting.
Go ahead, explain how it isn't shit--make yourself look like a troll/cult member of (post)modernism.

[Anonymous No.6084467]

>>6084453
That work is objectively good by your own standards: it makes a striking use of symmetry, display some level of technical mastery as well as an attention to detail, and tackle a contemporary issue with some measure of originality (making an actual table arrangement instead of painting or sculpting a table).

I must thank you, by the way, without your OP pic I could never have proven that this work isn't shit.

Now stop making retard arguments against internet strawmen (like the one so gloriously displayed in you OP) and get back to effectively using your cortex.

[Anonymous No.6084485]

>>6084467
>That work is objectively good by your own standards: it makes a striking use of symmetry, display some level of technical mastery as well as an attention to detail, and tackle a contemporary issue with some measure of originality (making an actual table arrangement instead of painting or sculpting a table).
Lol are you fucking stupid?

[Anonymous No.6084489]

>>6083934
>that pic
jesus christ

[Anonymous No.6084492]

>>6084453
I happen to think the dinner party is a piece of little merit, but because of its lack of subtlety, it's conflation of and lack of distinction made between widely differing individuals practices, and it's blunt politicality. Every point you make against it is almost entirely arbitrary and apparently based in a value system that has no actual connection to evaluating the actual language of art and the specific formation of meaning through the juxtaposition of symbolic material. You're operating at such a remove from the actual substance of art that it's little wonder your judgment of it is so basic and lacking in insight.

[Anonymous No.6084495]

>>6084453
how is it typical? you keep just posting isolated works without explaining how it represents "(post)modern art" (whatever you mean by this, which you should also explain)

just like actually make an argument. start from the start

[Anonymous No.6084496]

>>6084453
those vaginas don't look all that vulgar.

[Anonymous No.6084501]

>>6084453
Lol it's bad art because it's lacking artistic merit, be careful guys we're up against a real master of rhetoric over here

[Anonymous No.6084502]

>objectively measuring attention to detail

the clowns have taken over

[Anonymous No.6084504]

>>6084485
No I'm not, but thanks for asking. If you have trouble understanding my point, remember I am making a reference to the objective features of art pieces mentioned in the image attached to the first post, also called OP (for Original Post). Glad I could help.

[Anonymous No.6084505]

>>6084492
>blunt politicality.
Lol are you retarded, or just pretending?

[Anonymous No.6084507]

Wait, don't /lit/ have that infamous pic of the guy calling out that "muh objectivity" guy?
Why do we always get threads like these?

it's just like "noise isn't music" threads on /mu/, i swear to god.

[Anonymous No.6084511]

fluxus was fun and you can do it at home. if you don't want to use your attic for that but want to maintain utility, you can always hang yourself.

[Anonymous No.6084512]

>>6084504
You're fucken dumb kid---everything you say is utter garbage.

[Anonymous No.6084517]

>>6084502
u mad faggot?

[Anonymous No.6084530]

>>6084517
i can trace lines with my pen too.

[Anonymous No.6084532]

>>6084530
amazing, how much for the pen?

[Anonymous No.6084533]

>>6084530
Are you...the biggest faggot?

[Anonymous No.6084538]

>>6084533
i mean, obviously it's impressive, but that's honestly all he did.

[Anonymous No.6084539]

>>6084538
You really need to fuck off.

[Anonymous No.6084549]

>>6084539
lol okay stendhal

[Anonymous No.6084554]

>>6084539
>that one guy

[Anonymous No.6084562]

>>6084517
It took talent - among other things - to lead art that far astray. Bourgeois society gave these talents a prescription, and they filled it - with talent.

[Anonymous No.6084572]

>>6084562
ur geh.

[Anonymous No.6084573]

>>6084386
fine, you want the point by point?

>Bogus Defense #1

never once saw this defense being used. i wouldn't use it myself. i think anyone artistically literate understands that photography doesn't displace painting.

>Bogus Defense #2: It's all subjective

your so-called "objectively based criteria" are subjectively chosen. there's no reason to prefer things like technical difficulty, techniques, detail, etc., over anything else in artistic expression. its also not a postmodern assumption that "art can be anything." for that you have to go back to dada and duchamp. postmodernism didn't start until post WWII. i also dont understand why you put the "post" in parenthesis.

if things like skill, technical difficulty, symmetry, technique, details, etc., are important to you, that doesn't mean it should be important to everyone else

>Bogus Defense #3

i've also never read anyone defend pomo art by saying "it's popular." i have no idea what you're trying to say here.

>random twitter pic

or, maybe no one is stepping on the glove, because nobody would do that anyway in similar situations? if you came across a random glove in the classroom, you wouldn't just go "fuck you glove" and step all over it. you do the civilized and polite thing, which is walk around it and hope whoever lost it will see it on the ground and pick it up themselves

>#4: realism is boring, people want something different

your 'debunking' doesn't refute the premise of the 'bogus defense,' which is about what people want. you go on to discuss things you want and like. again, you fail to see any boundary between "art i like" and "art everyone should make and like"

you might be able to salvage some arguments from the wreck that is your OP image, but its an incoherent, presumptuous mess at the moment

[Anonymous No.6084574]

>>6084517
>he thinks this picture proves something

[Anonymous No.6084581]

>>6084574
the guy has literally never even heard of camera obscura

[Anonymous No.6084586]

>>6084574
The more details something has, the greater its artistic value. This explains why 'abstract' and 'minimal' art is so worthless, because it required no artistic talent or labor to produce.

[Anonymous No.6084592]

>>6084586
>the greater its artistic value.

how?

[Anonymous No.6084596]

>>6084581
>le conspiracy face
Yep, all the old masters are camera obscura niggers. Surrrre thing buddeh.

[Anonymous No.6084598]

>>6084592
ur fucken dumbbbb

[Anonymous No.6084601]

>>6084586
even if i accepted your stupid premise, you'd still have to quantify "attention to detail" and measure it and in the end, even after formulating said measurement, you'd still be left with subjective interpretation.

[Anonymous No.6084607]

>>6084586
>The more details something has, the greater its artistic value.
is this objective fact then, or just your opinion?

[Anonymous No.6084609]

>>6084592
It creates interest and beauty in the work and wonder at the talent of the artist.

[Anonymous No.6084613]

>>6084609
sorry but this picture right here>>6084517 is not interesting.

[Anonymous No.6084621]

>>6084512
Nice argumentation, my friend. I'll try to equal you:

>You're fucken dumb kid---everything you say is utter garbage.

No.

[Anonymous No.6084623]

>>6084586
The more plates of spaghetti something has, the greater its artistic value. This explains why 'abstract' and 'minimal' art is so worthless, because it requires no plates of spaghetti to produce.

[Anonymous No.6084627]

Systematic subversion was a logical, interesting, and necessary step in art and aesthetics. It just stopped being fertile by the hippie generation. Just like any other movement, modern/postmodern art has its perfectly understandable intellectual demiurge, its phase of creativity, and then its decline into kitsch. The usual postmodernist response to 'why don't people make pretty paintings of Caesar anymore?' is that those have become kitsch. The postmodernist just doesn't realise that his Piss Christ 3,615: This Time It's REALLY Offensive To Your Grandma masterpiece is kitsch too, even though he got applause from clueless hipsters when he said it's a critique of critiques of semiotics.

Picasso was genuinely a genius. Warhol was a kitsch artist, celebrity, and eccentric 'personality', reflecting Western civilisation's fascination with the artist or author as a visionary creator (ironically this dissection comes from postmodern literary theory). Pollock was an autistic manchild who got informally adopted and patronised by pomo fetishists who told him his autism was genius. Rauschenberg was just a retarded Deviantart user who was tragically never informed that he's a hack.

In a hundred or a thousand years, just like with every other era, all the derivative pomo pastiche dogshit and 'look I wiped my ass with some culture's sign for inviolable divinity!! again!!! am I art yet??' will erode away, and we'll be left with a few Picassos and some footnotes about postmodernism's degenerate baroque period.

[Anonymous No.6084634]

>>6084627
>hates modern art
>loves picasso
yo what the fuck

[Anonymous No.6084639]

>>6084623
Logic Absurdum. lol dumb philosofags don't even know about fallacies, figures.

[Anonymous No.6084645]

>>6084627
shut the fuck up faggot. ur dumb.

[Anonymous No.6084646]

>>6084453
You keep making these threads and keep getting destroyed on every front.

[Anonymous No.6084647]

>>6084586
i made a thousand dots on my paper. all painstakingly and meticulously separated by one milometer of space. am i an artist?

[Anonymous No.6084648]

>>6084639
Reminder that Logic Absurdum isn't a fallacy.

[Anonymous No.6084654]

>>6084639
I was merely pointing out how arbitrary your choice to focus on attention to detail and technical ability when it comes to aesthetic value were. Have I touched a nerve?

[Anonymous No.6084656]

>>6084647
logic absurdum--for the truly DUMB.

[Anonymous No.6084657]

>>6084647
of course you are, and even better, by OP's standards you're a genius.

[Anonymous No.6084662]

>>6083934
Anything can be art, but the label art does not imply some sort of inherent quality

[Anonymous No.6084666]

>>6083934
that is the most retarded argument against modern art i have seen, and i am not surprised you get banned when you bring use pol level reasoning

[Anonymous No.6084672]

>>6084662
Word, mostly because art, and nothing else in the world has inherent quality, but i get you.

[Anonymous No.6084673]

It's pretty funny how every single anon in this thread have failed miserably to refute anything OP says.

>Logic Absurdum
>Camera Obscura conspiracy theories
>Le everything is subjective, even the objective!

lulz, you guys are so dumb and gay. Did I mention that? That you're dumb and geh?

[Anonymous No.6084677]

>>6084657
>>6084656
I think I have come to the conclusion that any sort of dialectic dialogue via irc chat or message board is completely and totally useless. No one ever has enough time elaborate, tiny details can be left out and result in a flame war.


I think I'm not going to come onto 4chan anymore.

[Anonymous No.6084678]

>>6083934
The problem is everything man made is considered ART, if you take a shit, smear it across a canvas, smudge it here and there, drizzle some paint around the undigested food pieces, what do you call this piece of shit? what category would this piece of shit fit in? Its man made, with a purpose, unknown to most, but if you make a roll of them, hang them in a dark room with a spot light, out of the 100 retards viewing it, 1 will spend some good money buying it, hence, the post modern art era had began. Keeping shitting them out, keep the money flowing, keep brainwashing the herds.

[Anonymous No.6084680]

>>6084673
did you even read the thread?

[Anonymous No.6084687]

>>6084662
>Anything can be art
Really? A receipt is art? Ready mades are art?

You're not a fag?

[Anonymous No.6084688]

Why do people on /lit/ act as if argumentum ad absurdum is a logical fallacy, when it's just an argument?

[Anonymous No.6084692]

>>6084687
why aren't they art though?

[Anonymous No.6084693]

>>6084673
>logic absurdum is a fallacy because it makes me look foolish
>literally nobody I like has ever taken shortcuts
>everything is objective according to my subjectively-chosen value determinants

[Anonymous No.6084694]

>>6083934
Mods I think we have shown we don't want these shit threads
Please remove them

[Anonymous No.6084696]

>>6084687
Why isn't it? I never said it was good. I can smear my shit on a piece of paper and that is art, but that doesn't mean it's good. You don't get to change the definition of words, sorry.

[Anonymous No.6084698]

>>6084692
>>6084696
>Why can't I stop sucking cocks

I don't why can't you? Maybe cus ur geh? Jew?

[Anonymous No.6084700]

>>6084687
>>6084678
So if i made a technical and classically beautiful painting with a lot of brown, it would be art. But the second you found out the brown was actaully shit it wouldn't be?

[Anonymous No.6084701]

>>6084698
Maybe if you would stop being an immature manchild people would take you seriously.

[Anonymous No.6084702]

>>6084586
The ceramic work on the right is from the Tang dynasty. The ceramic work on the right is from Etsy, made last year. The rooster cup has more details than the Tang dynasty vase. You must agree, then, that the rooster cup has greater artistic value than the Tang dynasty vase.

[Anonymous No.6084704]

>>6084701
it's probably just some kid from /b/ or some place being a master troller

[Anonymous No.6084708]

>>6084702
stop with the unfair cherrypicked examples bro >_< !!!

[Anonymous No.6084709]

>>6084702
>The rooster cup has more details than the Tang dynasty vase
I disagree, the Tang shape is far more intricate--shape is a detail too y'know? gay boi.

[Anonymous No.6084711]

>>6084698
>geh
Cartman please

[Anonymous No.6084712]

>>6084702
To play double's advocate the tang dynasty vase is probably being kept as a historical artifact than a work of art

[Anonymous No.6084717]

>>6083934
to all those people who argues in favor of post modern art, image for a second it in the case of literature, its like comparing Pynchon and Nabokov's work of art to twilight, harry potter, and all of those young adult novels, the latter is just not up to par, why defending it so hard?

[Anonymous No.6084718]

contemporary art world is just complacent liberals who get warm fuzzies when they think about 'participation' and 'experience'

[Anonymous No.6084721]

>>6084717
But isn't Pynchon post modern literature?

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.6084724]

You can think postmodern art is a travesty and that's fine.

[Anonymous No.6084727]

>>6084717
First of all, that's a terrible fucking comparison, because Pynchon is PoMo, and Young Adult novels are not.
Secondly, no one is saying that YA novels aren't art, just that they aren't all that good. Which is a subjective opinion.

[Anonymous No.6084729]

>>6084717
Actually it would be like comparing Shakespeare, Cervantes and Moliere to Nabokov and Pynchon.

[Anonymous No.6084732]

>>6084700
the point is, anything you produce with technical mastery that very few can duplicate regardless of material, in my book considered art, my point was, anything is considered now days, even shit smear that everyone can make

[Anonymous No.6084734]

>>6083934

Why do you give a shit? Why do you need a bunch of anons to validate you? Think whatever you want to think about art, and quit whining and shitting up the board.

[Anonymous No.6084738]

>>6084732
>in my book
there you go

wouldn't it be way harder to duplicate this than any of the masters' work, though?

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.6084740]

>>6084718
Art is "about" experience.

[Anonymous No.6084742]

Don't people get tired of this? I guess it's time to leave 4chan, 6 years in and people are still making "muh modern art is shit" threads ironically and unironically in 2015.

[Anonymous No.6084744]

>>6084742
People have been saying 'muh modern art is shit' for literally hundreds of years.

[Anonymous No.6084745]

>>6084609
it doesn't necessarily. are byzantine church mosaics 'bad art'?

[Anonymous No.6084747]

many times you guys get too tangled in the objectivity of good art. there's a real false dichotomy academic community of art critique. some people really do think art is a purely subjective (a sort of reaction against strict pedants, who appeal with typical MUH DETAILS arguments). and then there is the pseudo-sophisticates who believe the pinnacle of human expression was white men painting scenes from the bible a few hundred years ago.

but what is "good art" in an easy definition? simply put, something that we ought to appreciate because of it's quality in the context of the precedent set by the artist's contemporaries. additionally it needs to be beautiful in a timeless sense. this is all jargon but bare with me. simply because you don't experience beauty when you look at a painting does not means it's not beautiful. similarly i don't like living in the country side. does this mean living in the country is objectively bad? no. but here - I wouldn't want to live without a home. not because of a personal aversion to such a thing, but because it's actually bad./

there's more to it than such an egocentric analysis.


a bit drunk sorry for any poor explanations. don't take me too seriously but non-hostile converse is appreciated
someone should write a bit about how art is a bourgeois delicacy. i'd like to read that

[Anonymous No.6084750]

>>6084744
Except we have archives here, the same people browse the board with frequency, you'd expect retards to have come to a conclusion by now, but they still behave like crybabies.

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.6084751]

>>6084747
>simply because you don't experience beauty when you look at a painting does not means it's not beautiful.
yes it does

[Anonymous No.6084753]

>>6084687
>he literally can't get his head around modern art

sense stimulation is the height of everything for you

[Anonymous No.6084755]

>>6084729
>>6084727
i've seen plenty posts on lit bitching about YA, why is it different when it comes to art? the bottom line is the same, one takes talent, dedication, time and mastery to complete, the other, not so much

[Anonymous No.6084756]

>>6084742
Agreed, it's time we set a permanent ban on this kind of shitposting.

[Anonymous No.6084757]

>>6084750
>some guy makes his mind up about something that he literally can't seem to comprehend
>excpects him to change

[Anonymous No.6084759]

>>6084717
i'm in favour of all art. i think the hate against postmodern art is unfounded

[Anonymous No.6084760]

>>6084755
bitching=/=denouncing it as art

[Anonymous No.6084763]

>>6084757
I'd expect him to stop crying at the least, the worst of all is that most of there people are either really that dumb or they still have fun spamming this shitposting.

[Anonymous No.6084766]

>>6083934

Not appreciating the oldest of the old masters

[Anonymous No.6084767]

>>6084763
>either really that dumb or they still have fun spamming this shitposting
i think it's a mix of all of them.

[Anonymous No.6084771]

>>6084766
wtf is this post modern shit? that's so easy to make wtf even my 6 year old son could draw that

[Anonymous No.6084773]

>>6084712
did no one notice this retarded post

[Anonymous No.6084776]

>can't distinguish between pre-modern periods of art
>"postmodern art is dumb because it uses less paint"

[Anonymous No.6084778]

>>6084740
I mean 'mass experience' works like giant installations, along with the idea that participation is automatically emancipatory.

[Anonymous No.6084779]

>>6084773
What's retarded about it?

[Anonymous No.6084786]

>>6084751
then no painting is beautiful, dude. a solipsist approach isn't going to compel anyone except solipsists. i'm sure there is a person who doesn't find the basilica of venice beautiful. does this mean the metaphysical value and beauty of it is now absent?!

[Anonymous No.6084787]

>>6084779
that Tang piece is a masterwork

[Anonymous No.6084788]

>>6084776
don't forget the
>"postmodern art is dumb because it uses more paint"

[Anonymous No.6084790]

>>6084771

Not sure if trolling or ignorant as fuck.

Chauvet Cave dude

[Anonymous No.6084793]

>>6084192
I don't have any congratulatory reaction images, but that was perfect. 10/10

[Anonymous No.6084795]

>>6084787
That doesn't mean it's not kept more for historical than artistic purposes.

[Anonymous No.6084798]

>>6084790
>Not sure if trolling or ignorant as fuck.
i swear to god, som /lit/izens are fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.6084799]

>no love for any art except two or three giants with contradictory styles to what was considered 'good art' and 18th century oil painting
>"postmodern art is dumb because it hasn't been remembered for 200+ years"

[Anonymous No.6084802]

>>6084795
it's kept for artistic purposes as well

[Anonymous No.6084804]

>>6084798

> not getting the post ironic meta shitposting

[Anonymous No.6084811]

>>6084802
I was just playing double's advocate

[Anonymous No.6084812]

>>6084804
>not realizing i literally baited out this E X A C T response

[Anonymous No.6084816]

>>6084811

[Anonymous No.6084818]

>>6084811
doubles guy is for doubles, not 5s, that would be yu-gi-oh guy

[Anonymous No.6084839]

>>6084517
the insertion of paintings into a painting is actually a pretty post modern construction. id say that piece of art is SHIT!

[Anonymous No.6084846]

>>6084812

Not getting that I was I was baiting this EXACT response out of you

[Anonymous No.6084857]

>>6084846
i created this thread in the hopes that eventually the thread would arrive at this very post, at this very time, with this very post number

[Anonymous No.6084878]

>>6084634
He actually makes good points, and doesn't express any hate towards modern art in general, unless you believe modern art is reduced to Warhol, Pollock, Rauschenberg and piss-Christ. Just reread the three first sentences.

>>6084677

You're a quick-witted one.

>>6084709
The Tang ceramic has a more complex overall shape, but almost no details, unless you're willing to call everything in an art work "details", in which case a pile of sand that you took from the beach is a masterpiece. Actually, one could argue that the beauty of the Tang piece stems from how elegantly it dispenses with details.

>>6084755
The YA bitching threads are usually terrible, and we wouldn't miss anything if they were banned at this point.

[Anonymous No.6084888]

>>6084857

I replied to this thread in the hopes of fulfilling this very hope

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.6084910]

>>6084778
Please explain your concept of mass experience.

>>6084786
It's not a "solipsist approach". It's subjectivist epistemology. Any "objective criteria" of measuring the value of art ultimately has it's epistemology rooted in the preference of individuals which inevitable have different preference, thus rendering the value of said work subjectivist.

> i'm sure there is a person who doesn't find the basilica of venice beautiful. does this mean the metaphysical value and beauty of it is now absent?!
Yes, absent for that individual. You are presupposing an objective value of art.

[Anonymous No.6084927]

>>6084727

This. YA novels are art, they're just particularly bad, with no exceptions if you're looking back over the works produced in the past 20 or so years.

The themes may be as shallow as a puddle on the sidewalk, the characterization may be non-existent, the plot may be 100% of the novel, and the prose may be written at a 7th grade level so that people can understand, but they're still art.

[Anonymous No.6084948]

>>6084738
no it wouldn't, by duplicate, not meaning exactly the same with every stroke, i meant on the same level or similar type of art, everyone can be a pullock

[Anonymous No.6084960]

>>6084948
that's not actually what duplicate means though.

[Anonymous No.6084967]

>>6084839
I think you mean (post)modern

[Anonymous No.6084992]

>>6084696

Then art has no definition. It is a non word.

[Anonymous No.6084997]

>>6084927
yes, by your logic, people are producing shit, in the art world and the literature world, but we should keep calling them art, to encourage them to produce more shit to sell. Sure, if you want to categorize anything man made that has no utility value, it'd be a fucking art. shit on a canvas, its art, write a diary, its art, drizzle some colors, its art, stare at someone for a while, its art, everything is art art art

[Anonymous No.6085001]

>>6084992
Tht doesn't follow from his statement. If you say that art is anything that is presented explicitly as "art" in front of an audience, you have a definition that applies to his example.

[Anonymous No.6085003]

>>6084960
if you can't get the jest of it, i can't help you

[Anonymous No.6085004]

>>6084948
>everyone can be a pullock
Today yes, but today everyone can be a picasso aswell.

[Anonymous No.6085006]

is this art

[Anonymous No.6085010]

>>6085003
>uses 'duplicate' wrong
>jest
yo...

[Anonymous No.6085011]

>>6085003
It's geist (inb4 le infinite jest reference) and he was comenting on your poor word choice, not our reasoning.

[Anonymous No.6085012]

>>6085004
>implying it's easy to steal shit from the louvre today
Picasso ruined that for everyone

[Anonymous No.6085014]

>>6085006
Of course?

[Anonymous No.6085020]

>>6085001

Well that is not what art means. This is why we have dictionaries.

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.

That is the definition. Your definition is wrong.

[Anonymous No.6085023]

>>6085011
It's actually gist, though.

[Anonymous No.6085024]

>>6085014
is pomo

is my post pomo art

[Anonymous No.6085029]

>>6084997
You finally got it, good job.

[Anonymous No.6085036]

>>6085029
and by having a standard of what is considered art is wrong because...? why can't you say "No! I don't accept THAT as ART, my art have standards"

[Anonymous No.6085039]

>>6085020
>typically
So you do not know what this word means, then?

[Anonymous No.6085056]

>>6085036
Why would you want to do that?
Art is evolving, and that is interesting. Why should it be given repressive, arbitrary 'rules'?
And by the way, you are alone in you opinion. You share your opinion with the mass media, not with the art scholars.

[Anonymous No.6085074]

Is this art?

[Anonymous No.6085077]

>>6083934
I know I get flamed to high heavens for this but I basically believe in a modified version of the first argument you refuted in this image. Only I think Photography AND modern computer graphics killed painting. New art should be digital, but instead they're trying to keep painting artificially alive by literally throwing shit at canvas.

[Anonymous No.6085079]

>>6085020
Art means a lot of things (which was one of the points of this thread, in case you didn't notice) and nowadays the definition I gave is particularly relevant.

But, again, you didn't pay enough attention to the relationship between a statement and the statements it was an answer too. You said >>6084696 implied art had no definition, and I gave you a definition that was consistent with his example.


>This is why we have dictionaries.
Dictionaries don't give you all the meanings of a word, they simpl register the most proeminent recorded uses. By that's besides the point anyway.


>That is the definition.

That is your definition. It's fine, but I hope you realize it may entails that some things that you wouldn't consider "art" are art.

>Your definition is wrong.

How so ? It provides you with a criterium to find out which kinds of representation are commonly considered art nowadays. By your definition pure mathematics and bizarro shock literature can be considered art, and why I wouldn't necessarily disagree, this is not how most people use the word "art" in casual and even erudite conversation.

>>6085023

Isn't geist also used as such (non native here) ? Like in zeitgeist ?

[Anonymous No.6085097]

>>6083934
Look OP I know you must have spent 9000 hours on that infographic but /lit/ doesn't really talk about self-published shit

[Anonymous No.6085108]

>>6084992
Art is an expression of creativity. My smeared shit is an expression of creativity, therefore it is art. Anything that expresses creativity is art, but once again that label does not denote quality.

[Anonymous No.6085124]

>>6085108
Manzoni has objectively better shit than you.

[Anonymous No.6085128]

>>6085124
Nobody was saying otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6085195]

>I can prove you ((((((((((post))))))))))) moderns are wrong
>>6084192
>>6084467
>>6084573
>>6084647
>can't answer arguments without lol u re dumb
>thinks reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy

[Anonymous No.6085327]

Everyone in this thread should watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGX0_0VL06U

[Anonymous No.6085777]

The majority of people ITT are this:

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

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.6085854]

>>6085777
The problem with that picture is that each example has a function which it can be measured at how successfully it achieves physically achieves it, whereas art does not. The exception in the image is music, and proclaiming one is more virtuous doesn't make it better, it's just stating a proposition. Painting may also be more virtuous which also doesn't make it better or "superior". Taking it further, unlike all those examples which still admit to the opposition being a table, music etc respectively, opponents of postmodern painting deny that the opposition is considered art.

[Anonymous No.6086490]

>>6084453
>vaginas are vulgar, stupid, immature, and disgusting
virgin detected

[Anonymous No.6086499]

>>6084673
>It's pretty funny how I'm literally just regurgitating the same 'lol u retarded' responses to valid criticisms of my original image
ftfy

[Anonymous No.6086574]

>>6085777
This picture fails to notice one of the most important distinctions between art and craftmanship - all art is entirely quite useless.