/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6160688]

Is art not the antithesis of nature?

[Anonymous No.6160702]

Is it not that nature is much more artificial even than art?

[Anonymous No.6160715]

>>6160688
Neither Art nor Nature have set definitions or parameters. This question is impossible to answer in any meaningful sense.

[Anonymous No.6160724]

>>6160702
Le huysmans, wilde on so on face...

[Anonymous No.6160732]

>>6160688
No, science is

[Anonymous No.6160744]

>>6160702
Surely that's contradictory? I guess the human concept of nature could be seen as artificial, but how is nature in any way artificial?

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6160755]

What if that scenery in your picture existed in a virtual or dream world? Would that change your opinion of the relationship between art and nature even if our perspective of each is exactly the same? Or do you think the way something presents itself in the background of our knowledge defines the essence of something? Or what if every little detail of the scenery was determined by a creative mind?

[Anonymous No.6160784]

>>6160744
...One should thus learn to accept the utter groundlessness of our existence: there is no firm foundation, a place of retreat, on which one can safely count. "Nature doesn't exist": "nature" qua the domain of balanced reproduction, of organic deployment into which humanity intervenes with its hubris, brutally throwing off the rails its circular motion, is man's fantasy; nature is already in itself "second nature," its balance is always secondary, an attempt to negotiate a "habit" that would restore some order after catastrophic interruptions...

"Nature" on Earth is already to such an extent "adapted" to human interventions, the human "pollutions" are already to such an extent included into the shaky and fragile balance of the "natural" reproduction on Earth, that its cessation would cause a catastrophic imbalance. This is what it means that humanity has nowhere to retreat: not only "there is no big Other" (self-contained symbolic order as the ultimate guarantee of Meaning); there is also no Nature qua balanced order of self-reproduction whose homeostasis is disturbed, thrown off the rails, by the imbalanced human interventions. Indeed, what we need is ecology without nature: the ultimate obstacle to protecting nature is the very notion of nature we rely on.

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6160802]

"We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us even in our soundest sleep. I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious endeavour. It is something to be able to paint a particular picture, or to carve a statue, and so to make a few objects beautiful; but it is far more glorious to carve
and paint the very atmosphere and medium through which we look, which morally we can do. To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -H.D.T.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6160859]

No, superficiality is the antithesis of nature.

[Anonymous No.6160865]

>nature

stupid word. signifies nothing

[Anonymous No.6160907]

>>6160688
The image you posted of 'nature' is a park in New York City. i.e. something artificially created by man.

[Anonymous No.6160912]

I would consider 'nature' to be the observable physical world, and I think consciousness is the opposite thing

[Anonymous No.6160927]

>>6160912

you can only access what you describe as the 'observable physical word' phenomenally via consciousness

[Anonymous No.6160940]

>>6160688
Work is the antithesis of naturw

[Anonymous No.6160941]

no you're thinking of christianity

[Anonymous No.6160993]

>>6160784
>taking zizek seriously

[Anonymous No.6161012]

Good art replicates nature

[Anonymous No.6161016]

I guess you could say art is...

artificial

[Anonymous No.6161189]

>>6160688
it's the synthesis

[Anonymous No.6161193]

>anything being the antithesis of nature