[ 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: 379 KB, 1208x800, Chomsky-young.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6308534 No.6308534 [Reply] [Original]

TFW CHOMSKY IS PATRICIAN

ORWELL BTFO

BASED ZAMYATIN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9PqnWSlt9E

>> No.6308605
File: 36 KB, 310x475, Zamyatin - We.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6308605

Time I get a copy of that.

Opinions on the better English translation?

>> No.6308606

>>6308534

I read the preface of producing consent today and I'm excited about it .

>> No.6308651

>>6308534
The thing he says about 17:15 in that video about structure and creativity is so true, and something I've believed for a long time, and why contemporary conceptual art is shit.

>> No.6308698

I've seen another interview where he said he didn't know who philip k dick was

So he probably hasn't read Le guins the dispossessed either :(

>> No.6308711
File: 47 KB, 420x340, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6308711

>dismisses brave new world as 'just science fiction'

>> No.6308722

>>6308711
I think if he was younger and knew about today's technology he would appreciate it more

>> No.6308742
File: 300 KB, 800x533, KatsuyOaoki_5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6308742

>>6308651
You misunderstand. Conceptual art has concepts. "you can push" the boundaries he says.

And so, we explored those ends and have doubled back towards what we're calling pop-surrealism. Still not terribly respected by the hoity toity "fine arts" industry. The wealthy collection of the mostly dull crap.

>>6308698
Probably not

>> No.6308770

>>6308742
I don't think your pic is conceptual art at all. I mean shit like Damien Hirst and Tracie Emin and Jeff Koons, and various other people who just market in-your-face obscene objects. There's no coherent medium; no coherent rules/criteria/structure/whatever for moves to be made from. These people think the criterion for good art is to be different _as such_, their only defence being "BUT YOU DIDN'T DO IT, DID YOU?" or "WHO'S TO SAY WHAT IS OR ISN'T ART?" This worked for Marcel Duchamp because he was the first to do it. All these other gobshites are non-creative copycats who think they're geniuses. End rant.

>> No.6308791 [SPOILER] 
File: 44 KB, 500x659, 1427166246511.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6308791

>>6308770
No, but its beautiful and has been embraced by the pop-surrealists.

>There's no coherent medium
There doesn't have to be any coherence. Okay, later he talks about Kerouac. His poetry had a certain level of coherence. If it was just free-flow word salad, it would be boring and deemed nonsense.

If there's a buyer, there's an artist. But some of the best is just made for the hell of it

[Don't open picture at work]

>> No.6308813

>>6308791
I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by coherence. It's not (usually) a conscious thing. But let's say you're improvising on the violin in some key, and then you start deviating outside the key. The only reason those deviations would have the character they do is because you've already set the loose structure of the key. The ear those deviant notes as stepping over the lines of the structure. In art and painting, when you look at the history, there's a very coherent narrative. All the big movement follow from the previous one by reacting against it and making coherent steps outside of the structure. But if you dropped a Jackson Pollock painting into the 18th century everyone would be like "wat" because they hadn't first seen cubism and surrealism etc. No in those conceptual artists that I criticised, there is no coherent structure. Everything is flattened out so there is nothing to step outside of; there is no inside/outside distinction. It's literally just random shit. There is nothing to react against. In summary what I'm saying is this: you have to know what the rules are in order to break them. If there is no rules, there is nothing to break, nor follow. Therefore originality becomes impossible.

>> No.6308830

>>6308651
Conceptual art has not changed much since its inception.

>> No.6308836
File: 21 KB, 252x242, 1343881457698.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6308836

>>6308534

>watched "Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy?" last night
>Chomsky just seems so sad throughout the whole thing

>> No.6308838

>>6308770
>koons
>hirst
>obscene
what?

>> No.6308845

>>6308830
Exactly.

>>6308838
I meant them plus other obscene people. You the types, "OOH LOOK AT THE INSIDE OF MY ANUS IT'S ABUT BEING RAPED BY WHITE MEN". Ok hun.

>> No.6308848

>>6308770
PoMo is not about doing something that hasn't been done before, quite the contrary.

And i'm not sure duchamp was the first, but he was a great artist. And i don't see why 'everything is art' shouldn't apply just because he's dead, even when pretty much every modernist thought this way, and that it's pretty much a fact.

>> No.6308851

>>6308848
>and that it's pretty much a fact.
I can think of almost nothing less suited to being called a fact that a comment on what art is.

>> No.6308853

>>6308845
None of those mentioned do that, but i get what you're saying.
What you are doing is cherrypicking, my friend. You don't know a lot about contemporary art, so you just bitch about what little you know or have heard.
The only thing the obscene has to do with contemporary art as a whole is that it exists.

>> No.6308854

>>6308848
I'm not saying "anything can be art" is wrong, I'm saying it's, at this stage, overused, trite, hoary, cliché etc. We've been pressing that line for decades, no one's impressed by it anymore. Ok, we get the idea, anything can be art. Now can we please move on.

>> No.6308855

>>6308853
>None of those mentioned do that
Maybe that's why I said as much explicitly

>> No.6308857

>>6308851
>pretty much
And just because of this. but because the term 'art' is so vague, it seems appropriate to have 'literally everything' as a semi-definition.

>> No.6308861

>>6308854
And people have moved on.
You don't have to like it, you know.

>> No.6308863

>>6308857
Many people have very clear definitions about what art is, I don't think disagreement is the same as vagueness. The problem is that it's essentially a philosophical question and as such it's very hard to say who is right, or if anyone is. No offense but I've noticed a lot of people just dogmatically accept that art is anything called art without looking into alternative views.

>> No.6308873

>>6308863
I don't see why anything couldn't be art.
It's not like the term holds any sort of value.
A turd will still be just a turd if it's art or not.

>> No.6308934

>>6308836
Watch some recent videos, since remarrying he's been as giddy as a school girl
>tfw an 86yo can meet a grill and you cant

>> No.6309313
File: 21 KB, 304x166, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6309313

>>6308722
>science fiction is about technology