How do we fix art, /lit/? And I mean all forms of art. Painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature...
>>8188749
By taking off our fedoras one at a time.
>>8188749
1. Destroy Capitalism
>>8188749
Define art
We must pray to the Meme God of Necessity every night. Only then will art be fixed.
You can't fix art, it's not broken. If you hate post modern art you hate art that is responding to the post modern world. If you want art to change, change the world, or wait.
>>8188753
We can just walk, fedoras in hand, brothers and sisters, opting out of a raw meme.
>>8188763
That's not right.
Entertainment will always exist, entertainment which is most likely superior to todays generation then reading, just wait till virtual reality comes, then all we'll be getting is sci-fi shit.
People also have no culture no foundation, for a good 1000 years and including when the greeks were around parents would expound into their children culture, good education, knowledge of the arts, music, literature if they had the money.
There's really no hope for most art forms. Sculpting is practically dead as well but you can still find it in eastern societies. Music will keep growing atleast.
>There are people not only in this world, but on /lit/, who think the renaissance and classical aesthetic isn't a thing in the contemporary art-scene.
>>8188780
>Sculpting is practically dead
LOL, sculpting is the most alive of the lot
>>8188749
degenerate art is a product of capitalism that is degenerating
>>8188800
Would you mind explaining?
>>8188749
Seen the Rape of Prosperina live one 3 occassions, and countless times on a computer, and I still get amazed at the skill of Bernini
>ITT: MUH EVIL CAPITALISM
>>8188805
as we move from the capitalism of production to the capitalism of lavishing ourselves with our own wealth, discipline dissolves. Discipline in art is just one of the victims
>>8188813
This. socialism don't work cause you eventually run out of other people's money. Basic economics, really.
>>8188749
We don't.
DaDaism/ I';ll get the hammers
>>8188795
I said you can still find it in eastern societies m8. If you compare the kind of active audience/participants sculpting versus the other forms I still imagine it's the smallest.
(1/2)
Architecture student here.
This threads makes me think of how much architecture has devalued over the last 150 years. Back then, other arts like painting and sculpture were auxiliar to architecture. Buildings had tons of paintings in the interior and sculptures in the exterior. They took some time to do, maybe even years, but hey, that's the price you have to pay for quality. Everything was aesthetically pleasing, everything had class and character. We were surrounded by art.
But then abstract and funcionalist movements struck. Everything was meant to be simple and functional. Art could be anything. You don't need to have top skills nowadays to be considered an artist. Nobody cares about art anymore. That negligence is what keeps art in its current state, nobody cares abour art, so there is no need for artists to improve. You can be a monkey with no skills and paint something like Pollock, Mondrian or Rothko and call yourself an artist. Architecture was affected by this and it deviated from the logical straight line of development and evolution it had been following. You could see how architecture was slowly changing and evolving from the ancient Greeks, to Rome, to Byzantium, to Venice, the Gothic style, Renaissance, Baroque, Neoclassicism, and then started deviating, first slowly but nicely, with Art Nouveau-Jugendstil and Art Deco. And then took another completely different direction with no correlation to the other ones with functionalism and minimalism.
I think that us, the present and future generations have the task of taking architecture back to were it belongs. They noticed this in the XV and XVI centuries, and the Renaissance was born. They noticed it again in the XIX century and Neoclassicism was born. We should re direction architecture in the way it should: to a constant and regular development and evolution. Combining classic aesthetics with modern knowledge. We can use the last century as an experimental time. How do we do this? We now know much more different materials that we can use, such as mass produced crystal, aluminium or cobblestone alternatives. We can use steel to make better buildings. We know the structure theories iniciated by Le Corbusier. We now can make curtain walls. We can make taller buildings. We can make different intricated structures, proven by architects such as Gehry (although I hate him), Santiago Calatrava or Frank Lloyd Wright. Combining modern shapes (not that I'm implying that we should make a Gehry's Guggenheim made with marble and using ornaments like gargoyles and with triglyphs for example :lol:), structures and materials but adorning them and making them as aesthetically pleasing as classic architecture used to be. We need to re use and redevelop old techniques and resources such as column capitals and orders, porticos and peristyles, different types of arches, vaults, etc.
>>8188749
Art's a product of alienation. Destroy art/life distinction. Everything should be art
>>8188828
saying "socialism don't work" doesn't disprove the fact that capitalism is objectively terrible.
>>8188843
Gonna stop you right there, art has no place in capitalism and I suggest you stop pretending otherwise
>>8188843
(2/2)
And this comes with other important point: Identity. Back then, every town, every nation had its own identity. You can easily see the differences between spanish and italian baroque for example. Homegrown artists generally used to make their work in their own lands. Italian artists for Italy, french artists for France, spanish artists for Spain, turk artists for the Ottoman Empire, chinese artists for the Chinese Empire, and so on. Now, everyone can make any kind of building in any place in the world. You can place a chinese building in the USA or England for example, and it would most likely not look out of place. We need to give each country its identity back. I'm not saying that architects should not make buildings outside of their countries; I'm saying architects should adapt to other countries traditions and culture before making a new design there. The only good example of what I'm saying, I think, is brazilian modern architecture. It started with Oscar Niemeyer and LĂșcio Costa, and you can still see it in Paulo Mendes da Rocha. They have an identity. You can recognize brazilian architecture easily, anywhere. Many other big countries fail to have a way of making architecture of its own. I wouldn't like to see some of the buildings in Brasilia, Rio or any other Brazilian city on any place other than Brazil. It just wouldn't feel right. That's why I love the fact that almost all Niemeyer's buildings were built in Brazil. I think he basically started Brazilian architecture and certainly influenced every contemporary brazilian architect. Some aspects and characteristics I've seen are quite usual in Brazilian architecture: Simple shapes, interaction between straight lines and curves, minimalism, bare concrete facade, plain white + crystal facade, contrast between the juxtaposition of bare concrete or plain white with stong basic colours like red or blue, for example, specially in the interiors.
If we manage to merge what I said before, we can make architecture beautiful again. This also applies for other forms of art: painting, sculpture, music, literature...
>>8188855
literally please go dig a hole and bury yourself in it
>>8188769
The externalization of a person's ideas, beliefs, emotions, and interpretation of reality and information. It's nature filtered through the human consciousness.
>>8188853
Socialism only has the equal distribution of misery
>>8188843
>implying Wittgenstein didn't solve architecture too
don't bother with part II, you haven't even read Kant
>>8188855
sharing is caring right
>>8188863
Okay but the viability of socialism has no bearing on the quality of capitalism. They can both be terrible.
>>8188865
great meme, well played
>>8188865
Haus Wittgenstein is good, functional and modern (for its time). But it has no identity or character. Combine its functionalism with art, and we have good architecture.
Also:
>Haus Wittgenstein
>Designed with Paul Engelmann in 1925.
>Engelmann basing on what Adolf Loos proposed in 1901.
>Still calling it "contemporary" and using those ideas even though they are more than 100 years old.
>>8188895
Actually I think Witty did draw a lot on Kant's principles for his design with Engelmann, which is probably why even he found it soulless. You should look at his windows and doors in action for some serious elegance if you haven't seen it yet.
>>8188912
An avant garde that is so very stylish
>>8188912
retard
>>8188910
fascinating
>>8188828
>socialism
>money
its often the people who think they're fixing it that fuck it up the worst
Capitalism is the nemesis of high culture. Capitalist """"""art"""""" is the most plebeian shit ever seen on the face of this planet.
>>8188856
>Italian artists for Italy, french artists for France, spanish artists for Spain, turk artists for the Ottoman Empire,
ahahahahaha the absolute madman
>>8188862
So my desire right now to go make a pizza is art?
>>8189163
N-no, but the pizza itself could be art, if done in a way that satisfies those conditions. By externalization I meant the product, like the painting or song itself.
>>8188862
that's not art, that's just communication.
>>8189139
Who pays for "high culture"
"High culture" only exists because of capitalism and is a enjoyed by the privileged class, fucktard.
>>8188749
what a transparently stupid goal.
>>8189271
>"High culture" only exists because of capitalism
No it doesn't, high culture exists because of feudalism and the lingering cultural vestiges of the aristocracy.
Capitalism as a mode of production places massive profit incentives on plebeian art because that's the best way to make fat profits and this profit incentivised economy strangles any kind of high culture in the crib with it only surviving as an odd curiosity for whoever is interested.
The only way to return to high culture is to make sure that there are no more plebs to be marketed to or anyone to market to them, i.e classes society i.e communism.
>>8188749
end yourself
>>8188749
damn nice feet. most sculptures ive seen have shittily sculpted feet.
>>8188871
you're right but bitching about how capitalism is shit doesn't change the fact that it's better than any alternative.
Gas the kikes desu
>>8189339
Are you going to deny that music, literature and plastic arts + architecture have not been devalued over the last 100 years and are still in constant decline? What a fucking retard.
>>8189370
end yourself
>>8188763
Actually it's socialism that debases art and undermines objective standards. The rise of decadent art coincided exactly with the rise of ideological Marxism and pragmatic socialism
>>8188855
>communism
>art
>anything that is not capitalist is communism
Holy shit
>>8189351
But the fact that it's shit is clearly a problem that needs to be solved. Maybe the solution is right in front of us, maybe it hasn't been invented yet, but in any case capitalism is problematic to the topic of the thread.
>>8189395
>he posts meme reactions pics of evola
tell me more about your disdain for "modern man"
>>8189386
On the contrary the USSR was the most patrician country on the planet and made high culture accessible for everyone rather than making culture that would be instantly accessible and appealing to everyone.
Rather than making art for plebs, they exposed plebs to the good shit.
>>8189395
HARE KRISHNA HARE KRISHNA
KRISHNA KRISHNA HARE HARE
>>8189391
>capitalism
>art
Reminder that every true cultural renaissance throughout history took place in a capitalist paradise
>>8189429
Right, so where's Somalia's renaissance?
>>8189432
>Somalia
>Paradise of any kind
Not sure if trolling or just fresh off the boat from lefty/pol/
>opens pic
>sees ancap meme
I guess it's the later then
>>8189434
*latter
>>8189434
>Paradise of any kind
Yes, a capitalist paradise.
If it doesn't look like a paradise then the problem is clear.
>>8189429
Huh? America didn't become a capitalist country until the 20th century, and capitalism didn't become a major global phenomenon until the latter half of the 19th century.
>>8189416
You don't get it.
>>8189424
You get it.
>>8189438
You can't possibly be this retarded. By "capitalist paradise" I mean places where there's a shitload of rich people. There have been no socialist renaissances.
>inb4 socialism has never been tried
>>8189441
>Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit
Remember when you could buy slaves to own to work your plantation that you own to sell the crops that you own for capital gain? The fuck are you on about?
>>8188763
Back to r/fullcommunism please
>>8188853
>Thinks capitalism is objectively terrible
People are this deluded?
>>8189311
>Implying that under communism there would be anything but plebs.
Yeah classless since we are all sitting in our own shit.
>>8189473
>the very foundation of the system is the myth of a "mutually beneficial transaction" which is basically one guy ripping off the other and brainwashing him into thinking he got a deal
>not a terrible system
>>8189454
>You can't possibly be this retarded. By "capitalist paradise" I mean places where there's a shitload of rich people
So was the USSR a capitalist paradise?
Was the Roman Empire?
>>8189477
>I need hierarchy to prevent me from sitting in my own shit
Says a lot about you tbqh.
>>8189478
>Thinks there is such thing as inherent objective value
>I have a burger but want a hot dog, guy who wants a hotdog has a burger. Trading with him will not make me better off.
Back to r/socialism (and inb4 ancap strawmanning )
>>8189480
Not sure what your trying to imply. The USSR never had a renaissance and Rome wasn't socialist.
>>8189483
I'll try to get up and everyone else will hold me down so that we all have equal outcomes.
>Hierarchy
>Inherently bad
>>8189492
*you're
>>8189492
Okay, so if it has loads of rich people and a cultural renaissance that means it's a capitalist paradise? In other words if it's successful it must be capitalist.
>Rome wasn't socialist.
Socialism isn't the only non-capitalist system, anon.
>>8189495
Is that why you're not a billionaire yet, anon?
Is everyone else holding you down?
>>8189502
>Implying I'm not a millionaire
One can be above the average and not be a super rich ty. These things take time and effort, not like a commiecuck such as you would understand.
>>8189504
>I'm bourgeoisie
Why did you just say so?
"I'm rich and I don't want commies to collectivize my "property"" is an infinitely more valid argument than "Without wage labour how can I bootstrap my way to success?".
>>8189497
>In other words if it's successful it must be capitalist.
Socialists don't consider many rich people to be a sign of success because they view private property, a requirement of being rich, as an abomination. If success in your eyes = rich people then yes, if it's successful it must be capitalist, because only capitalism allows rich people to exist.
>Socialism isn't the only non-capitalist system, anon.
It wasn't non-capitalist either.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy
>Although aristocratic values permeated traditional elite society, a strong tendency toward plutocracy is indicated by the wealth requirements for census rank. Prestige could be obtained through investing one's wealth in ways that advertised it appropriately: grand country estates or townhouses, durable luxury items such as jewels and silverware, public entertainments, funerary monuments for family members or coworkers, and religious dedications such as altars. Guilds (collegia) and corporations (corpora) provided support for individuals to succeed through networking, sharing sound business practices, and a willingness to work.
Basic income
>>8189512
*didn't
>>8189515
>Socialists don't consider many rich people to be a sign of success because they view private property, a requirement of being rich,
Rich people existing is a bad thing, however their existence is a definite sign that this is a successful economy as it has generated the massive amount of wealth that the bourgeoisie exploit. The existence of rich people is a sign of wealth which is a sign of economic success.
>It wasn't non-capitalist either.
Yes it was, capitalism wouldn't exist for over a thousand more years after the Western Roman empire fell.
Did it have capitalist elements? Yes, but so did the USSR. And that definitely wasn't capitalist unless you want to go the full leftcom.
>>8189532
>however their existence is a definite sign that this is a successful economy as it has generated the massive amount of wealth that the bourgeoisie exploit
and what I am trying to explain to you is that even if you can find isolated instances of socialist/anti-capitalist/"whatever the hell you want to call it" societies with thriving economies where everyone had an equal share of prosperity and wealth, none of those societies have birthed a renaissance because they lack the rich.
>Yes it was
No, it was clearly capitalist, not "it had some capitalist elements", the means of production was controlled and operated by those who privately owned those means of productions for capital gain, who then proceeded to spend that capital gain lavishly because they were RICH.
>Yes, but so did the USSR
again with this stale "socialism has never been tried" meme.
>>8189551
> the means of production was controlled and operated by those who privately owned those means of productions for capital gain, who then proceeded to spend that capital gain lavishly because they were RICH.
Once again I must say that's exactly what happened in the USSR. Pic related, it's Stalin's holiday home.
Was the USSR capitalist too?
>none of those societies have birthed a renaissance because they lack the rich.
Because there is no such society. The rare instances of non-ML communist societies with a decent population were always swiftly crushed (usually by ML's) before you could really gauge whether or not they are conducive to an artistic renaissance.
>>8189558
>Was the USSR capitalist too?
You socialists will have to decide for yourselves if Komradland was command capitalism or irreparably broken socialism, since nobody except you seems to know what socialism means. Fact is, it was built with the blatant and sole intention of socialism. It was not friendly to the rich by any means, it was not a place that supported them, except for those who would inevitably gain wealth through government corruption like uncle Joe.
Do you consider Lenin a true socialist? There was no renaissance under him either.
>Because there is no such society.
I guess it's pointless to talk about then. My point stands: every true cultural renaissance throughout history took place in a capitalist paradise.
>>8188774
"So the next time you ask yourself where hip-hop is going, ask yourself: where am I going? How am I doing?"
>Painting
not relevant anymore
>sculpture
not that relevant anymore either
>architecture
yeah, this one really needs fixing
>music
this one is ok
>literature
this one is ok too
>>8189598
>not relevant anymore
THIS is the real reason why art is dead, faggots like this anon have stopped caring about it because they think gaming systems and Iphones are superior replacements.
>>8189581
>You socialists will have to decide for yourselves if Komradland was command capitalism or irreparably broken socialism, since nobody except you seems to know what socialism means.
I never said it wasn't socialist. I said it very clearly had the kind of capitalist elements you're identifying in the Roman Empire. My implication is that if you must have such a black and white view of economic systems then following your logic the USSR is without a shadow of a doubt capitalist.
But of course that's retarded, just as saying the Roman Empire was capitalist is equally retarded.
>It was not friendly to the rich by any means, it was not a place that supported them, except for those who would inevitably gain wealth through government corruption like uncle Joe.
In other words "It wasn't friendly to the rich except the rich who were in charge". You could apply this to every society to ever exist.
>every true cultural renaissance throughout history took place in a capitalist paradise.
But again, it didn't. The only reason you think it did is because you have an extremely ridiculous concept of what is and isn't capitalist that essentially amounts to "If it's successful then it's capitalist".
The actual renaissance predates capitalism even in the most crude forms, the Carolingian renaissance definitely predates capitalism. So what renaissances are yo actually talking about?
Or is that what the qualifier of "true" was for?
>>8189587
Fear Not Of Man
>>8189598
Sculpture is probably the most relevant medium today. Goto a gallery sometime.
>>8189607
Art is "dead" because the gates were opened to the insecure, uneducated middle class who declared it meaningless and hollow for fact of being beyond their limited comprehension. Rather than thriving out of reach from the plebeian, it's forced to live inbetween their (admittely feeble) awareness.
>>8189607
>they think gaming systems and Iphones are superior replacements
they're atleast better than the trainwreck that is modern "art"
>>8189609
>it very clearly had the kind of capitalist elements you're identifying in the Roman Empire.
Is the picture you posted supposed to be evident of that? Stalin, one of the most powerful dictators in history, along with some of of his mob buddies living in slightly more ornate commie blocks out of the public eye does not even compare to the blatant, widespread plutocracy and worship of materialism that was evident in the roman empire. I'm not being "black and white", they were clearly polar opposites from an intrinsically cultural standpoint.
>But of course that's retarded, just as saying the Roman Empire was capitalist is equally retarded.
People generally say that the USSR was socialist because it had the ultimate intention of socialism, whether it ended up being capitalist is debatable because of how much of a failure it was, but whether it was or wasn't isn't the point which you are failing to understand. This isn't about semantics. The USSR was never anywhere near the level of an ideal capitalist society while ancient Rome, Italy, and Greece all were. They were breeding grounds and magnets for ultra wealthy to play spend and invest lavishly. All societies that failed to attract the rich, like poor countries, or countries that rejected them, like the USSR, have failed to see a renaissance.
>>8188749
Depopulating the planet, the less common the artist the more precious the art.
Schools of high art don't exist anymore. There is no emphasis for it.
>>8188749
fuck proserpina. that same fucking statue all over 4chan like it's god's gift to memes. pick a different statue to fawn over you little cunts.
>>8189724
Step it UP, senpai.
>>8189719
Yes, to quote yourself
> the means of production was controlled and operated by those who privately owned those means of productions for capital gain, who then proceeded to spend that capital gain lavishly because they were RICH.
How is the widespread materialist nomenklatura any different from a widespread materialist plutocracy?
> The USSR was never anywhere near the level of an ideal capitalist society while ancient Rome, Italy, and Greece all were. They were breeding grounds and magnets for ultra wealthy to play spend and invest lavishly
Except that also happened in the USSR. I hope you realize they spent money on things besides tanks and grey buildings. Stalin in particular was a fanatic for commissioning movies, the Soviets in general were very interested in investing in art as part of their strategy to guide and control artistic movements within the country.
The statues on every street corner didn't pay for themselves, you know.
>All societies that failed to attract the rich, like poor countries, or countries that rejected them, like the USSR, have failed to see a renaissance.
Yes, because according to you any country that both has rich people in it and at one point has a renaissance is a true capitalist society no matter when it existed or how it functioned, that basis alone is enough. But less culturally relevant societies that also had capitalist elements? No, that's not REAL capitalism, not like ancient Greek slaver states.
Actually come to think of it how the fuck was ancient Greece capitalist yet Somalia (the source of this argument) isn't?
>>8189761
Not every country that was filled with rich people had a renaissance.
But every renaissance took place in country filled with rich people.
That should answer the majority of your post.
>Except that also happened in the USSR.
No it didn't, the only ones with big pockets at the time was the regime, private enterprise was stifled.
>Actually come to think of it how the fuck was ancient Greece capitalist yet Somalia (the source of this argument) isn't?
I never said Somalia wasn't capitalist, I said that there are no rich people in Somalia. The fact that you don't understand this means that you're arguing with a strawman and I'm typing paragraphs to a wall.
>>8189800
*not many rich people
>>8189800
>But every renaissance took place in country filled with rich people.
I never denied wealth lends itself to a renaissance. I'm saying that the idea that only capitalist countries can have a renaissance and every renaissance happened in a capitalist country is absolutely retarded.
>No it didn't, the only ones with big pockets at the time was the regime, private enterprise was stifled.
So it was. And?
That doesn't answer the question as how to the wealthy nomenklatura are any less capitalist or even conducive to renaissance than the Roman patricians.
>>8188763
Yes, let's destroy the thing that has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else in history.
>>8189830
>Yes, let's destroy the thing that has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else in history.
Compte de Freu Freu circa 1790 when faced with criticism of feudalism.
>>8189810
>I never denied wealth lends itself to a renaissance. I'm saying that the idea that only capitalist countries can have a renaissance and every renaissance happened in a capitalist country is absolutely retarded.
These two sentences contradict each other. If renaissances can only be birthed from countries which support large numbers of the rich then how the fuck can it be born in a country formed out of an ideology that despises them?
>That doesn't answer the question as how to the wealthy nomenklatura are any less capitalist or even conducive to renaissance than the Roman patricians.
Because the soviet regime was only made wealthy through corruption. The public, the people, the country itself did not want leaders or citizens to be living lavishly. The ideology they followed condemned property rights entirely. Because of this, not many people were rich, just some of the very high profile regime members. This is in stark contrast to every country that ever had a renaissance, which had a culture of capitalism, a capitalist paradise, at the time.
>>8188820
Oh, what utter horseshit. Artists are trying to explore new avenues and push the medium further. Would you call someone like Picasso undisciplined because he painted (purposely) like a child, or was he intentionally attempting to do something different with his art?
>>8188853
Yeah, I bet you have it real rough. And why not offer some constructive criticism instead of just bitching?
>>8189532
>Rich people existing is a bad thing
tips fedora
>>8189841
> If renaissances can only be birthed from countries which support large numbers of the rich then how the fuck can it be born in a country formed out of an ideology that despises them?
By making society classless in such a way that everyone is effectively rich.
>Because the soviet regime was only made wealthy through corruption
So it was, but private property is a corruption in of itself. Why is it right for the bourgeoisie to own private property and profit off of it yet wrong for the nomenklatura to do the exact same? They essentially functioned like a business that had monopoly over everything in the entire country.
Their wealth was not corruption, it was just collecting surplus value.
>not many people were rich, just some of the very high profile regime members. This is in stark contrast to every country that ever had a renaissance, which had a culture of capitalism, a capitalist paradise,
Are you trying to imply that renaissance Italy was not only capitalist, but also was more equal than the USSR?
>>8189845
>constructive criticism
The favourite defence of every 13 year old girl.
>>8189860
>By making society classless in such a way that everyone is effectively rich.
Good luck with that, lol
>So it was, but private property is a corruption in of itself.
Yeah, OK. Way to miss the point of the post and pick a single sentence to start injecting your rhetoric into. By "corruption" I mean that they attained it through methods that were in total contradiction to everything that Marxism advocated for to create an ideal society. Say what you want about the Romans but they were just doing what they considered morally just in culture that revolved around capitalist ideals like property rights and garnering of wealth.
>Are you trying to imply that renaissance Italy was not only capitalist
Yes.
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0910/haeyoon/haeyoon1.html#ipr
> The emergence of prosperous cities and rich merchants is the core factor which made the Italian Renaissance possible. They drew substantial income from their urban subjects in their Italian cities and from foreign consumers. The commerce kept cities alive. The capital was accumulated and the ideas were flown into the cities. During this period, the modern commercial infrastructure including joint stock companies, the international banking system, a systematized foreign exchange market, insurance, and government debt developed (4). The Renaissance culture was cultivated in such prosperity in Italy.
>but also was more equal than the USSR?
I don't even know what the fuck this means.
Anyway I'm going to bed.
>>8189863
The only one pouting here is you. Go ahead, tell me how terrible your life is because of Capitalism.
>>8188785
/thread
>>8189890
I'm making less money because the bourgeoisie are exploiting my surplus value and the state is taxing me.
>>8188813
ITT: MUH GLORIOUS FEUDALISM
>>8189351
>it's better than any alternative
Hunter gatherer societies are better than capitalism.
>>8189924
Sometimes I think that hunter gatherer societies are better than everything.
>>8189902
Excellent response.
I'm wondering if the other guy is going to go down the route of "but capitalism is the best system we've ever had" and paraphrase Marx p much.
>>8189468
B2R
>>8189930
>Excellent response.
Heh...
>>8189486
>I have a burger but want a hot dog
How would you even find youself in this situation?
You identify the problem.
All the retards here just go "degenerate" and think it's done. Try to apply yourself and point to the fucking problem if you think there is one. Otherwise die in a fire and leave art alone, 'cause you just want pretty.
Remove all "irony".
>>8189835
Did feudalism actually lift people out of poverty?
>>8189971
Yes.
Feudal serfs were definitely better off than Roman slaves.
>>8189929
That's because it's true.
>>8189974
>thinking only in material terms ignoring the spiritual pleasure of buttsecks
>>8189959
Don't worry, cappies always use contrived, isolated examples that ignore any exploitative situations.
There is nothing to fix.
Literally every single generation has bemoaned the fall of society, the trouble with new art, and all the other nonsense.
Read a fucking book.
>>8188749
Just enjoy the art you like and let other people do the same.
>>8190142
My favourite art involves painting over your favourite art.
>>8190116
>Literally every single generation has bemoaned the fall of society, the trouble with new art, and all the other nonsense.
And here's what'll blow your mind; every single one of them was correct.
Humanity, and indeed everything else, is experiencing a constant decline. That's what happen when your plane of existence has entropy built into it.
>>8190234
>the chapman brothers aka jokes of the art world if you can call what they put out art
It's really more like childs play, I like when "artists" put in a little effort in their le pop culture meme exhibitions.
>>8188749
>How do we fix art, /lit/? And I mean all forms of art. Painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature...
We don't need to fix anything, shut the fuck up you pretentious fucker
>>8190241
How great it must've been in those Lascaux caves, truly the peak of mankind.
>>8190252
>I like when "artists" put in a little effort in their le pop culture meme exhibitions.
They're well known as being highly skilled and putting in a tremendous amount of effort bro. Really, you should look them up.
What a fucking Pleb thread. Look at all this faggot talking.
>communist architecture iz shit 1/3
>>8189959
Socialists are this antisocial, they don't go to barbeques
>communist architecture iz shit 2/3
>communist architecture iz shit 3/3
>>8190347
Capitalists are this stupid, they can't even pick up the thing they want.
Communism at least promoted art. Not saying it's the right kind of art or that pic related looks good, but hey, you can find tons of mosaics, sculptures and paintings in comme buildings
>>8188749
People are idiots if they think we've lost the ability to do these things.
Painters in the modern world are the most sophisticated in technique and ability, by virtue of post-scarcity, technology, and an abundance of accessible information to learn off from their predecessors. The same with literally everything else you posted. There's music being composed on shitty websites like noteflight that match the complexity of the third movement of moonlight sonata, arguably its niceness as well
There's just no market for them. Stop fucking complaining and actually create demand for these artists you cunt
ITT: no one will admit that the best art is motivated by religion. Yep, the problem is just that we are not communist enough yet.
>>8190380
>Stop fucking complaining and actually create demand
PURE
>The fine art which reflects the requirements of the period and the aspirations of the masses absolutely correctly and serves them is Juche fine art. Juche fine art is a revolutionary and popular art which is national in form and socialist in content; it is a new type of fine art in which ideological content and artistic skill are in complete unity.
>Embodying the Juche idea in fine art is a fundamental guarantee for developing fine art of the new era which meets the thoughts, feelings and emotion of the people, and serves our revolution. Our Party has set forth the policy of establishing Juche in fine art, and has ensured the full implementation of this policy in all spheres of artistic creation. Today in our country fine art has entered a new stage of development amid the strong current of the revolution in art and literature. Our fine art puts the archetype of an independent man at the centre of its portrayal, and has become a genuine fine art which is liked by our people; it is blossoming fully among broad masses.
>An artistic theory of our own style has come into being amid the fruitful efforts we made under the leadership of the Party to create socialist fine art embodying the Juche idea.
http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/06/21/on-fine-art/on-fine-art.pdf
Take the Juche-pill
>>8190388
It's better to have bad art than to be wrong.
>>8190380
+1 comment on youtube
+1 mp3 download
+1 piece of art bought
I do my part, but can't creat demand by myself only.
>>8190392
i see two pistols there
did his father fight for independence shooting dual pistols like lara croft?
also i believe it's a version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism
>>8188856
>>8188843
Fuck off with this bullshit
Spread wanton misery as best you can.
The best art is a product of human suffering.
>>8188843
>first slowly but nicely, with Art Nouveau-Jugendstil and Art Deco.
That's why the Chrysler building is still the best looking building in Manhattan.
>>8188749
SO YOU WANT TO FIX ART KIDDO?
TOP KEK.
I'M GONNA SHOW YOU THE WAY IN A FEW FUCKING SIMPLE STEPS. (don't tell the commies tho)
1. Install Objective Morality.
2. Deny and refute Subjectivism.
3. Hold Objectivism, and Absolutes above all.
4. Have places of art be dedicated strictly to reaching perfection.
5. Encourage Artists to seek Mimesis.
6. Place mathematical value to artwork, with clear distinct ranking.
BOOM YOU FUCKING PLEB. NOW ART IN ALL IT'S FORMS HAVE TO EITHER BE GOOD, OR IN THE FUCKING DUMPSTER. IGNORE ALL THE PHILOSOPHERS WHO SUCK MODERNIST COCK, AND YOU'LL BE GOOD TO GO.
you're welcome.
>>8190913
This will fix as in neuter.
>>8190913
Do you even know what modernism is. What you're saying is modernist.
>>8190451
>did his father fight for independence shooting dual pistols like lara croft?
yep, that's what the legend says. kim il sung would dual wield pistols his father gave him to single handedly fight the Japanese imperialists out of korea
>>8188763
I think capitalism isn't exactly the death of art, but I do think it contributes significantly to the Decline of the perception of art in the west, especially music. I'm not even a commie
>>8189391
it would be awesome to live in that building. you could pretend that you were really tiny and were living inside a lego brick, or that you were living in a submarine like the beatles and you were looking out of a porthole and all the trees around were really some undersea flora. at least it would take your mind off your bleak dystopian life for a bit
>>8190241
Doesn't entropy need/imply there is a systematic universe in existence?
Personal taste:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-false-principle-of-our-education
>>8190380
>There's music being composed on shitty websites like noteflight that match the complexity of the third movement of moonlight sonata, arguably its niceness as well
>>8189532
>unless you want to go the full leftcom
But that is exactly what you should do.
>>8190380
>Painters in the modern world are the most sophisticated in technique and ability
This is actually not true in any sense of the word.
>>8190262
Human beings didn't exist until God created Adam and Eve, the first nordics 5776 years ago.
>>8188749
I think the best all of us can do is to create our own works the best way we can. If we feel that some form of art is the right one for us and some specific style the one we would like to work with, then no matter how out-of-fashion, no matter how isolated from the âspirit-of-the-ageâ, no matter how little attention it get from the press, we should insist on doing it the way we think is right.
I myself am starting to produce my own plays (have finished a comedy, will finish a tragedy this ear and plan to work on two new comedies next year, if my bad health helps me to maintain mi routine). My plays are a blend of blank-verse and prose, with a highly poetic and metaphoric language (mixed, of course, with a down-to-earth and everyday speech-like manner). I donât care if it is out of fashion, if itâs retrograde, if it isnât modern, if it donât have an audience: what matters to me is that, when I lay down on my bed at night, I know that I am doing what I love and in the style that I admire. Of course, I try to popularize my work using Facebook, and will look for directors to actually stage the plays: I donât want to live in a bubble, but, even if I donât receive any attention or support, I will keep working with my own notion of what is good literature.
All I can do is my own part; how can I demand something of others if I myself am not doing anything to offer new works to the world?
First, we kill egalitarianism.
>>8190913
you're an idiot.
>>8191740
Music is more advanced and able to be made, and shares, than it has ever been. Music is not dead, the direct opposite is true. You only think of classical music as music and the past, and nothing else. Not folk, not anything. It was always just as vulgar.
You're a fucking psuedo and you need to leave /lit/
What's the issue, exactly?
There are great contemporary artists, but noone on 4chan knows anything about art, so how would you know? The average 4channer just occasionally reads some Buzzfeed article about some eccentric hipster artist having done some disgusting/perverse art piece which gains media attention - and thus the 4channer believes all contemporary art is like it.
Narrow-minded and ignorant as always. Never change 4chan~~
>>8188749
We can't.
99% of all art in every generation will be meaningless shit, with fluctuations whenever someone comes up with something new.
All we can do is ignore those 99% as best we can, forget the pseudos who produced it and try to keep the 1% alive for the next generation.
In essence it's pretty much the tenthousand chimps, with one or two smart ones now and then.
>>8191960
It depends what you're talking about. I could very easily and p cheaply go and paint something that will last longer than ANY Rembrandt, while most other artists (esp anyone that like to experiment like Da Vinci) weren't able to use their materials with the same knowledge. It's very much standing on the shoulders of giants.
I can also very very easily get excellent knowledge of anatomy and so on. The issues today are the hug box type shit that has become fairly prominent with this art as therapy type shit and lack of craft. But remember that the vast majority of artists have always been dreadful and that there are still great artists out there, the education at the top places is not as bad as many like to make out. And if you can't see the great stuff a lot of that is down to a shitty education yourself.
>>8192219
There is literally not a single artist alive today that can paint proper chiaroscuro because literally not a single person in the world is dedicated enough to ANYTHING to get that good at it.
>>8192233
And that is bad, why?
>>8192233
why would someone need to paint chiaroscuro in 2016
>>8192244
KYS
Y
S
>>8192263
Why is it bad?
>>8192244
>>8192256
The point isn't that it's bad that nobody's painting chiaroscuro in 2016, it's that literally nobody is dedicated enough to their craft to know how. And that's not just painting either, I used to study composition and it is fucking baffling how many normies couldn't even write a basic chorale to save their lives
>>8188780
Thing is, fuckhead, the "serious" music being made isn't being made by your underground, death grips wannabe local rap group, it's being made by people following some very similar premises as the ones doing "shit art"
I had a art history teacher who took the best position to take when you go to a gallery and the non-figurative, UGGO UGGO works triggers your autism:
He went on to study art history. I sugest you do the same.
Also, art and entertainment fit very different roles.
>mfw classicsfags say this
>>8189178
Therefore, what the artist does is art.
If contemporary art is done by artists, it is suficient art.
>>8192281
Why is it bad nobody knows how
>>8192301
Because every artist working today (including myself) is a lazy talentless pseud that deserve to get shot in the mouth for crimes against God (i.e. beauty)
>>8192305
Well mate, just sit down and go read Cennini's Libro dell'arte and study medieval painting with a dark chamber to better understand painting or some shit.
No one's stoping you from studying art, I've been researching the woodcutting techniques of the old masters for a while now, and it's been definitely worth for both technical and conceptual reasons in my understanding of engraving (and art)
>>8192305
Why would they be otherwise?
>>8189271
high culture is independent of economic systems you dolt
>>8188749
>How do we fix art, /lit/?
Eternal war
>>8189486
'anarchist capitalism' is an oxymoron
>>8189515
>because only capitalism allows rich people to exist.
what the fuck
>>8189551
saying the USSR wasn't full-communism isn't an implication that socialism was never tried, cf. Spain.
>>8189886
>Good luck with that, lol
that's exactly what post-scarcity abundance is, silly goose. hail the technology overlords who will free us from the tyranny of work
>>8189886
>By "corruption" I mean that they attained it through methods that were in total contradiction to everything that Marxism advocated for to create an ideal society
so you're saying it wasn't communism
>>8192305
as someone who thinks he's an artist, i agree whole heartedly.
>>8189724
OP here. Is the Veiled Virgin ok?
>>8188843
>>8188856
>>8190380
>>8190440
>>8192033
>>8192133
Literally the only relevant and worth reading responses in the thread, unfortunately. I'm gonna start dumping some good classical yet modern architecture in the meanwhile.
Also dumping this...
>>8190913
>5. Encourage Artists to seek Mimesis.
yikes
>>8193029
I'm jealous.
>>8193021
the bottom looks fucking gross. like viscerally.
>>8188763
destroying capitalism would not fix art at all, whatever that means. it would just reduce the number of "market art", but the "real art" would not increase in numbers or get better by the abolishment of capitalism. if anything, as there would be less people to promote art, "real art" would decrease too
>>8193122
k lol country boy
>>8190276
I put in a tremendous amount of effort in taking a shit this morning, but I wouldn't make an exhibition out of it.
Don't fix art, make your own art.
>>8193142
PURE IDEOLOGY
>>8193136
Grow up.
>>8188856
boy, should you take a history lesson..
>>8192133
pic unrelated
>art will never in its early 20th century form
why even live?
>>8193201
cubism revival when
>>8193210
futurism>cubism
step up your game lad
>>8193176
So edgy
>>8193233
futurist art owes almost everything to cubism and is garbage for newcomers to art like that one repin painting and brutalism
>>8193233
Futurism is shit.
>>8188763
All those modern art fags think this
>>8193747
Not the ones profiting immensly from it.
>>8189179
That is art; that is what art is--communication.
>>8190362
wasn't the metro tsarist?
>>8193797
>ehhhhh in a lazy way it is communication but it's more some sort of metaphysical project. art objects are objects in themselves and not some vehicle of ideas
I disagree, but whatever.
Muslims make the best art.
Gay Faggots off rooftops is a masterpiece.
>modern art (mainly painting) is shit
>contemporary fine art which replicates classical styles is disingenuous
where do we go from here? is there no more room for innovation? is fine art dead?
>>8188749
What needs to be fixed?
>>8189830
Industrialism, not capitalism, did this. Capitalism is merely an instrument, and a clumsy one at that.
>>8194225
What's the difference?
>>8193021
That's not an argument. I'm also not convinced that that's the real cost of building a palace.
I mean why would you want 8 palaces?
>>8192233
There are plenty who can paint chiaroscuro. I think you probably mean sfumato (for some reason people confuse them a lot despite them being very different things), but again people can still do that. Da Vinci was very good at sfumato, perhaps the best, but it's fairly easy to find out about now and try yourself
>>8194201
>is fine art dead?
No. Just different.
>>8194387
Dead in the sense that there is no she to go
Stagnant.
>>8194392
>I'm not a visionary so the medium is dead
>>8193136
Your no Gilbert and George anon. I believe they eat a fibre rich breakfast to stay regular.
And the Chapman Bros are very good painters. Look up One Day You Will No Longer Be Loved
>>8189386
Sounds like you need to read Literature and Revolution: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/
>>8194201
contemporary fine art (painting) is disingenuous because it replicates the same 19th century photorealism of the image you posted which is completely devoid of anything that makes it art i.e. the intellectual underpinnings, not just florid craftsmanship
modern art was a step away from the vapid shit represented by your image and did more for revitalising art than the contemporary paintings that look back at academic art as something to work from as a guide rather than replicate or imitate
contemporary art is mainly photography, installation art, sculpture, etc., i.e. the shit no one on 4chan actually posts about because it doesn't fit the narrative of "modern art made artists lazy and they make (f)art with poopoo and peepee and women's vagina blood and it's icky and gross". it is very much innovative
also fuck you
>>8194668
I was talking exclusively about fine art, I'm well aware of the developments in other areas of art
>>8194723
i am also talking about fine art you faggot woman
>>8194668
>>contemporary art is mainly photography, installation art, sculpture, etc., i.e. the shit no one on 4chan actually posts about because it doesn't fit the narrative of "modern art made artists lazy and they make (f)art with poopoo and peepee and women's vagina blood and it's icky and gross". it is very much innovative
>
>>8194759
these are all examples of fine art
>>8188800
Capitalism was degenerating in the 1890s and 1900s?
>>8190392
guess the south korean anti red propaganda did its job, your post successfully triggered me
