/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8675572]

>tfw recently discovered the magnificence of literature and poetry
>tfw just discovered romanticism
>tfw my mind has just been born and is eager to merge with its surrounding into Oneness

>so many time lost in pure philosophy and one-sided intellectualism

[Anonymous No.8675589]

>>8675572
Romanticism is obsolete and romantic values are a farce. Merge your dick with my mouth into Oneness until I shoot a giant load of chaotic unforgiving reality down your throat.

[Anonymous No.8675598]

Symbolism>Romanticism

[Anonymous No.8675671]

>>8675589
>>8675598
>they think the romantic values recuperated and turned into another piece of the machine are of any worth

[Anonymous No.8675682]

>>8675671
>he thinks romantic values themselves have worth and aren't spooks whose idealistic pursuit leads to eternal dissatisfaction with reality

[Anonymous No.8675688]

>>8675682
>reality

[Anonymous No.8675690]

>>8675682
>reality

[Anonymous No.8675695]

>>8675598
>symbolism and romanticism are mutually exclusive

What kind of retarded train of thinking lead you to that conclusion?

[Anonymous No.8675698]

>>8675688
>>8675690
Reality.

[Anonymous No.8675704]

>>8675695
>>symbolism and romanticism are mutually exclusive
When did I say that?

[Anonymous No.8675710]

>>8675704
By stating that one is better than the other, you are implying that they are two seperate entities.

Symbolism operates within romanticism. You can't have any form of art, or even language, without some degree of symbolism.

What kind of 'pure symbolism' are you trying to refer to here that would be an opposition to romanticism?

[Anonymous No.8675714]

>>8675572
>so many time lost

[Anonymous No.8675735]

>>8675710

[Anonymous No.8675828]

>>8675735
not him but what he said still stands. coming to conceptualize 'symbolism' as a pure form, or simply as a notion, is done within a world that has already integrated romanticism.

[Anonymous No.8675839]

>>8675828
I was referring to the Symbolist movement.

[Anonymous No.8675849]

Best romantic works? fiction or poetry?

[Anonymous No.8676055]

>>8675839
Symbolism shares much of its identity with romanticism. In fact, it only exists as an opposition to realism, which, as you know, was itself a direct opposition to romanticism. If anything, symbolism was a carrying on of romanticism, just with a much larger focus on, you know, symbolism.

I see no reason to compare the two. Next to the Romantic era, the symbolist movement is basically irrelevant.

>>8675849

William Blake is my personal favourite of the romantic poets. they are all worth checking out though. in my mind it was the pinnacle of poetry

[Anonymous No.8676134]

>>8675849
poetry by far

[Anonymous No.8676481]

>>8675572
Romanticism gave us something good, which was the refocusing on the importance of the inexplicable aspects of existence, and intuition etc. Things which romanticism asserts can't be properly adjudicated by any shape or form or convention alone, hence there were composers like debussy, who saw music as some kind of aethereal thing that is totally subjective and as such can't be judged on paper or according to any rules of composition.
However, romanticism is guilty of several empirical errors; first, the noble savage. Romanticists assert that since there is no objective measure of virtue then virtue cannot be a knowledge but rather more like an inner nature or pattern of behavior undertaken without any mediation by the rational intellect.
This is incorrect, the truth is that an uneducated man is uneducated, no matter how good artists want to portray him.
That image of the humble luthier or craftsman sitting in the woods with the wisdom of his old age and a heart of gold is one that you inherited from fairy tales, not experience.
Artists wished to portray such people as virtuous as a kind of attack on the french monarchy.
Romanticism is very much protestant propaganda.
I'd like to point out that art is neither a magical non-substance nor a particular organization of matter, but rather art is (or should be) the expression of the universal in the particular.
It's well known that bruckner marked out his bar lines even before he began composing the score, and although he adhered to the rigid contrapuntal forms of the ancients, he did so with such dynamism that the resulting symphonies had qualities that were transcendental and uniquely metaphysical in character, and generally unrivaled in complexity and form during his time, meanwhile other composers were doing everything unorthodox to revolutionize music, yet nobody will ever call a mahler symphony 'art' in the patristic sense of the word.
In any system, when the dis-integrating elements are uneducated savages, it is called a revolution; when your dis-integrating elements are intelligent, it is called reform. Remember this.

[Anonymous No.8676541]

>>8675572
Modernism > Romanticism

[Anonymous No.8676883]

>>8676541
>Modernism > Romanticism

Modernism is a meme which will be forgotten about in a century. Romanticism is part of a thousand year old tradition in western art. Many artists and critics have deemed it irrelevant, yet it still manages to sell extremely well in a supposedly 'post-modern' world. I have a feeling it will never die.

That being said, there are dark forces permeating the mass media (Not being ironic in the slightest, just being aware).. Post-modernism essentially has no specific style or genre, as the movement is in outright opposition to determinism and objectivism. So essentially post-modernism is just a placeholder, filling the void after modernism, and we are seeing it being pulled in two directions. One looks towards the past for its inspiration; finding romanticism, nationalism and traditionalism.

The opposing force is the pull of decadence. It is a total embracing of anything trivial, pleasurable, and distracting from reality. In politics, it manifests itself as far-left progressivism. In media it is cynicism and hedonism (thing of the amount of violence, profanity, sexual objectification and borderline pedophilia in current mass entertainment). In philosophy it is nihilistic, insisting that there is no reason to care or do anything about it.

2016 will most likely be the year the split is decided.

This is the info-war. We must vote for Trump

[Anonymous No.8676945]

>>8676883
It is a crime to call romanticism western, it is exactly the opposite, be that what it may.

[Anonymous No.8676958]

>>8676883
I just read the rest of your post, you sound like a filthy protestant savage.
Be discontinued.

[Anonymous No.8676998]

>>8676883

yes, the trivial pleasurable and distracting from reality were never found in romantic writing. oh wait thats actually the entire fucking basis of romanticism. byron wrote stories about ghosts and witches cause he was mad about people finding out he fucked his sister.

[Anonymous No.8677023]

>>8676883
>Romanticism is part of a thousand year old tradition in western art

i wonder what the heck this is about

modernism may be forgotten about in a century but it will be remembered again the next. that's just what happens in the art world; some styles and movements are forgotten and others are rediscovered

keep in mind that you could buy a pre-raphaelite painting for like $60 last century

[Anonymous No.8677075]

This thread gets so lost in semantics.

Romanticism is all about being a prissy lady and feeeeling.
Writing with the intention of evoking strong emotional response.
Whatever pokes peoples buttons.
In men, you play with their ideals,
in women, you do soap opera shit.
Romanticism is to realism,
like shrooms is to acid.
One emphasizes the heart,
the other the mind.
Damn it, I started talking about the heart.
Now I'm a romanticist.

[Anonymous No.8677078]

Romanticism gets big during times of cold technological dystopian realities,
Realism gets big during times when everyone's so bored they start killing themselves.

[Anonymous No.8677095]

>>8677075
i assume you are not using the term 'realism' in its art-historical sense, contemporaneous with romanticism because the dichotomy of heart/mind is not so easy to apply in that case

[Anonymous No.8677124]

>>8677095
Ha! You're funny.

[Anonymous No.8678361]

>>8676481
well yes and no. i think the noble savage thing should be interpreted as a metaphor or at least it should be understood as a product of the romantic's minds reaction to the world they were facing. so, saying that it is 'incorrect', even if obviously there is no such thing, is missing the point of the inspiration and the thrust of those who came up with the idea. it is like people who interpret the bible literally, scientifically or historically. even if their arguments can be 'right' from the point of view of their disciplines, the bible was not meant to be science or history. just like blake said

>Knowledge is not by deduction, but Immediate by Perception or Sense at once. Christ adresses himself to the Man, not to his Reason

i think the idea of the noble savage is to be taken as such. i think the error is still trying to see if things are 'right' and only accepting them if someone can prove their 'accuracy'. that approach to things is part of a certain frame. and this argument against the romantics misses the point of romanticism and places it in a place where its raison d'etre is obscured. that thing you write is the scholar received idea when treating of the 'dangers' of romanticism, which just cancels its actual worth and makes it look as just a pretty little roaming of some geniuses of a past world which has not much to do with todays reality, and puts it in a place where it will be inoffensive and inert.

if art is the expression of the universal in the particular, that particual should not be understood as a unversal or as pretending to be it.

past history is told to us from a present political point of view, but the actual lives of people are made of experience itself, which can only be known to the experiencer and only though art can other people get to know that experience, and only using it as a tool in their own experience.

[Anonymous No.8679478]

Who did it best?

[Anonymous No.8679489]

>>8679478
Goethe hands down.