“What is practiced as art today--be it music after Wagner or painting after Manet, Cézanne, Leible and Menzel-- is impotence and falsehood. One thing is quite certain, that today every single art-school could be shut down without art being affected in the slightest. We can learn all we wish to know about the art-clamour which a megalopolis sets up in order to forget that its art is dead form the Alexandria of the year 200. There, as here in our world-cities, we find a pursuit of illusions of artistic progress, of personal peculiarity, of "the new style," of "unsuspected possibilities," theoretical babble, pretentious fashionable artists, weight-lifters with cardboard dumb-bells--the "Literary Man" in the Poet's place, the unabashed farce of Expressionism, which the art-trade has organized as a "phase of art-history," thinking and felling and forming as industrial art. Alexandria, too, had problem-dramatists and box-office artists whom it preferred to Sophocles and painters who invented new tendencies and successfully bluffed their public. The final result is that endless industrious repetition of a stock of fixed forms which we see today in Indian Chinese and Arabian-persian art. Pictures and fabrics, verses and vessels, furniture, dramas and musical compositions--all is pattern-work. We cease to be able to date anything within centuries, let alone decades, by the language of its ornamentation. So it has been in the Last Act of all Cultures.”
- Oswald Spengler
How do you even disagree with this?
What a philistine.
>>7847746
>How do you even disagree with this?
Violent delusion and talmudic doublespeak AKA critical theory
>One thing is quite certain, that today every single art-school could be shut down without art being affected in the slightest.
Ever more true today than in his day.
Holy shit, I'm getting more and more redpilled
Sorry Jizzdick, but your "we need to think, but lol don't look at me for solutions, utopia tho 'n Lacan for some reason" is quite a fraud compared to what I get from the alt right.
I don't side with the eccentric originals, but prefer the humbleness of the Gothic Period, even in comparison with the Great Masters...
I think we'll find a return to painterly form, first in MEMEs, and then in oil painting, and then in greater works.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/new-old-masters-14188.html
In the first year, students dedicate mornings to cast drawing and cast sculpture, and afternoons go to master copies, block-ins, figure drawings, and perspective.
The next year, students spend mornings on cast paintings and afternoons learning figure grisaille and anatomy.
Year three involves figure painting in color and color theory
and year four focuses on figure painting in color, figure sculpture, and still life.
Mein gott the shameless ideology itt
>>7847746
O yea? Last I checked we're in he golden age of television (Wire, Madmen, Deadwood, Rome, Star Trek, Break Bad, etc). More great films are produced every year than ever before, and since Sperg lord wrote this countless literary masterpieces written.
Sure, there's also more trash than ever before, but that doesn't negate the former.
Our society may be in decline, but there is plenty of great art to consume. Owing likely to the fact that more people than ever before have access to information and art, and the means to act on it, and more people alive than ever before.
Hell, Witcher 3 is a work of art. Not only has our art gone beyond anything Sperglord imagined, it's also just genuinely amazing.
wait but doesn't he contradict himself? he attacks "new phases of art history" but at the same time rightfully blasts the repetitive static art of the oriental races, you can't have it both ways...
The shut down of all humanities would have a net benefit for society.
>>7847879
sorry can't take the dude seriously with that thumb-dick in his selfie
>leftists try to defend their special art schools
he was right you know. if you want to create worthwhile art you don't need to go to some school to learn how
>>7848040
Christ, you mention 6 tv shows and then you proceed to say Witcher 3 is art.
>>7848040
>>7848040
>Our society may be in decline, but there is plenty of great art to consume.
>great art
>plenty
>comparing TV shows to Wagner operas and Shakespearean dramas
>>7848088
Every professional artist had to go to a school or to a master to learn and study his craft.
>>7848040
the master baiter returned from planet beta
are you serious?
if you are, please answer the following questions:
>what great films where produced last year?
>Why did you use the word "consume"?
>what would you define as clearly NOT being art?
I would really like to understand how you think.
>>7848330
Typed reply got deleted..... typing on phone.
But will answer film question, just to name a few from past 5 years. The Master, Leviathan, Calvary, Black Swan, etc. There's quite a lot.
Consume? Probably repressed ideology popping out.
Your post is clearly not art, and neither is this.
>>7848238
What makes Shakespeare drama better than Deadwood?
Bet you can't explain it.
>>7848114
How is Witcher 3 not art?
>>7848385
Profundity of meaning, symbolism, allusions, great wit and dialogue, etc. I am not going to take the time to tap out on a cell phone why Shakespeare exceeds in artistic merit the TV show deadwood. If you read more Shakespeare than the minimum required to skate by in your grade school days you would understand my reluctance to entertain your idiotic comparison.
(first post in thread)
>>7848330
Art is an illusion which transcends its physical medium*, allowing you to become immersed into it's faked perspective/reality (that is, the process of "seeing" less of the real world and more of the illusion, including up to the point of overlooking that it is an illusion). The quality of art is based on the depth of immersion and stimulation/beauty.
*: E.g., the image replaces the paint strokes or pixels, the melody replaces the series of sounds, the virtual world replaces the code.
What isn't art then? Something you cannot become immersed into. Something that is "real" or "true", or at least not an illusion. Something which does not give a meaning beyond its physical parts. There's no perfect, clean-cut difference, but that only comes naturally with the subject.
>>7848493
While the works of Shakespeare may have many superior qualities and may be overall superior to any one TV show, the distance is not so great they cannot be compared. The truth of the matter is, the reason you would refuse to compare the two has less to do with the qualities you mentioned and more to do with the fact Shakespeare is considered venerable (a sacred cow, if you will). Not only does decades and decades of praise (and where that praise comes from also being venerable) place an aura of sacredness to something like Shakespeare, the influence of it found in newer works is counted against those works. This often happens to any great art or artist (and in some cases, older mediums vs. newer ones).
You also have to consider the proper way of experiencing Shakespeare is in the form of plays (not just reading the script). It's pretty easy to understand why someone may have a stronger, better experience with television than a play (of course, there can be television based on Shakespeare's plays).
>>7848606
>the reason you would refuse to compare the two has less to do with the qualities you mentioned and more to do with the fact Shakespeare is considered venerable (a sacred cow, if you will).
Not at all.
There are certain giants worthy of their being sacred cows (like Beethoven, for example) such that attempting to dismiss their popularity in such a way is wrong.
>>7848074
Ha. Enjoy your eugenics.
>>7848385
>What makes Shakespeare drama better than Deadwood?
Bait taken.
TV shows like 'Deadwood' exist as a form of audio-visual nerve stimulation for a nation of Yoricks, who, much like the Elizabethans, needed something like a 'Titus Andronicus' to keep them entertained. Meaning entertainment that is vaguely historical, but also something that is able to keep the pace with the crudeness of the modern era, while pumping in all the latest propaganda.
Shakespeare was interested in real people; characters, types, stations of life, outlooks and motivations that go beyond survival, into the realm of the philosophic. A Shakespearean character could provide commentary on any belief, action, symbol, station, or object.... in such a way that it breathed life in the character's unique perspective.
Deadwood is about being the toughest sonuvabitch in the shithouse. It's the Old West streamlined for idiots and reformulated as a high school pissing contest.
>>7848664
I'm not trying to dismiss its popularity, I'm saying its popularity (or venerability) is blinding. This is what it means for something to be a sacred cow, which isn't synonymous with "overrated".
>>7848706
I don't know what you mean by "TV shows like 'Deadwood'", whether you are being very specific or talking about TV shows in general, but in the case of the latter, you come across of being ridiculously unfair to the the medium (which is fundamentally the same medium from the audience's perspective). TV shows provide commentary all the damn time, in fact, it's very difficult for an entire audience to walk away from a show and not have a single person find something to take away from it. I've never seen Deadwood, but it would be absolutely insane to say what you said about The Wire.
Even then, one might wonder how important commentary is. You make it seem all-important. What's wrong with audio-visual nerve stimulation? If you only cared about commentary and not about the spectacle, why would you watch plays or TV shows instead of reading non-fictional books about philosophy, history, and so on.
>>7848791
>I'm not trying to dismiss its popularity, I'm saying its popularity (or venerability) is blinding.
I didn't mean you were dismissing its popularity; clearly you were acknowledging it by calling his works a sacred cow. What you were dismissing by calling it such a phrase (added to by your insistence that its popular was blinding) was its profound artistic merit.
>>7848860
In other words, you dismissed the notion that his works deserved such high veneration by calling them a sacred cow, meaning they are popular only because enough bigwigs called it genius, and we all in cultish obedience or fear for being called fools, agree
>>7848493
Have you actually watched Deadwood? It's got all that, the dialog has even been described as shakespearean.
Also, great art doesn't need to have all those things.
>>7848706
Deadwood has all that. I think your bias prevents you from seeing it. So does The Wire, so does Madmen.
Shakespeare was also written for low class morons to enjoy. It's bawdy and people love those stories. But it's not reason to assume Shakespeare is superior for some reason.
Deadwood is awful.
If you want to compare tv to Shakespeare, at least cite good tv, like the first 10 seasons of the Simpsons, Seinfeld, Mr. Show, etc.
Manet and Cezanne where mediocre, and so was the impressionist movement and it's derivatives as a whole. Why stop at them?
Stop at the baroque would be better.
>>7849655
I'm open to enjoying Seinfeld and The Simpsons as well, but Deadwood is not awful.
Also Rome is an awesome show.
>>7848040
The issue is that the entire concept of art in this our era is wholly subservient to the logic of industry, profit and growth.
Nothing else matters or emerges. Anything with the appearance of novelty and scalability is strip-mined from high art, folk art, cultural works from the past, etc. and blown into a cultural bubble for mass appeal.
>there is plenty of great art to consume.
'Consumption' is just the problem. Will we ever stop asking "what is the next big thing?" and ask a different question?
>>7849680
ugh, baroque painting is the worst. I bet you eat sugared pastry off lace napkins
I know this whole thread is pure bait but at least when it comes to music he couldn't be any more wrong. Brahms, Dvorak, Rachmaninof, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich and countless others; all surpassed Wagner in pretty much every sense and came afterwards
>>7849680
wrong on manet and cezanne, right on impressionists, gauguin, van gogh, seurat, etc
baroque is really an inconsequential period except for the dutch
>>7849685
Largely I agree, but the fact remains that even in our sick society, great are still manages to be produced.
The past has had much harsher conditions, and yet artists still emerge. Now is no different.
>>7849686
I appreciate beautiful light and dark contrast and fine exquisite detail, you prole.
Impressionist paintings look like a stoned first year art student taped a brush to his cock and tried to do a landscape.
>is impotence and falsehood.
what a surprise that art which emphasises the artificiality of painting is suddenly impotent and false! it's like he got the point but didn't realise it was the point
art is over. it was a meme
>>7849708
>I appreciate beautiful light and dark contrast and fine exquisite detail
n00b
>>7849685
>The issue is that the entire concept of art in this our era is wholly subservient to the logic of industry, profit and growth.
"issue" huh
>>7847771
You're saying this while not being a gold engraver, I see.
>>7849685
You say this as if the art "industry" isn't having more and more problems in the past 60 years to determine what is art and how to sell contemporary art considering a lot of it is immaterial or some other shit (see: land art, performance art, site specific installations, public art, etc.)
Also, it's worth pointing out shit like mannerism or neoclassicism wasn't well received back in it's time either, but you obviously ignore the 500/300 years society had to adapt and consume their art because of MUH BEAUTY or some other shit. The irony comes from the fact that the only things to be consumed and interpreted as "real" or "beautiful" art we have in the west can't be fully understood as "art" since the concept as we understand it was non-existant before renaissance
>>7849735
it's pretty strange that the people who like 'realistic' art because of the effort put into it by the artist don't like the virtuosity of mannerism. strange also that the favourite art of 4chan is just 19th century oil painting
>>7849739
A bunch of dogmatists, each nabbing and hoarding their "art" while gnashing their teeth at others.
Infantile response to the diversity of art, ethnocentric to boot.
You have to actually read Spengler to understand what he's saying. He's not just a reactionary or something like that.
Decline of the West is a beautiful and exciting book. He should have named it literally anything else, because the title doesn't even come close to encapsulating what the book is. Most people who read it don't end up agreeing with it all but it makes a deep impact. Both Heidegger and Wittgenstein were profoundly struck by it and lectured on it often in their early careers.
He's largely correct.
>>7848385
>>7848040
stop.
>>7847746
predictable dumb shit written by a old fedora
>>7849739
I thought chan culture was much more like a throwback to Modernism. I can imagine /pol/ as the Italian Futurists.
>>7847771
Tbh alt right would love lacan if they could understand him.
>>7849798
you're a retard for comparing a bunch of neckbeard virgins to a throwback to modernism or Italian Futurism.
We are all edgy 16-26 year old losers that have no real say or effect in day to day culture or life.
>inb4 projecting
you know it's true. /pol/ are just edgy twats and so is the rest of 4chan.
>>7849798
It looks 333333DDDDD !!!!!!!!
>>7849730
>he's saying you can't engage in proper criticism of the works' flaws because of the bigwigs.
Where did he say that?
