Nietzsche's suggestion that aesthetics should be the supreme value above truth, as opposed to truth as the supreme value above aesthetics, is what lead to the catastrophe of modern aesthetics whose quality isn't beholden to truth, there is no such thing as "true beauty" anymore, it's just a matter of who most represents the "spirit of the age" (or the "current year", as it manifests politically).
Nietzsche's idea of truth here is contaminated, and it is the contaminated conception of truth that he rebels against. After truth passed from subject (revelation, truth reveals itself consciously) to object (freethinking, the Enlightenment, truth is an object to denude), materialism rebels against the incoherent, freethinking enterprise, and identifies truth strictly with empiricism: what we see and hear, and ends up raising utility above it (and Nietzsche is actually rebelling against utility as the supreme value more than he is against truth).
cont
>>74134670
Nietzsche is working with the materialist conception of truth, and of course realizes that the empirical is altogether a matter of perspective, if what we see and hear is synonymous with truth, then there is no monolithic truth, each person has his own "truth". But in order to accept this conclusion, one must first accept the entire post-freethinking enterprise, the materialist, realist enterprise. Once truth becomes purely relative, then it ceases to have any significance beyond taste, and if truth is merely a matter of taste, then taste itself is the predicate upon which it dependent, and taste itself is aesthetics, so Nietzsche says truth as a product of taste is of no value compared to the taste itself, merely a servant of taste. And once this is accepted, then the taste which is the most exotic will always be most valued, whatever is the "spirit of the age", the "current year", is what is most fresh, and therefore most exciting, and this impulse assumes control over all art and politics. But of course the dialectic is not complete, to be complete in abandonment of God, the vagaries must be abolished, and destruction becomes the measure of all things, because destruction is the ultimate excitement, the ultimate in freshness, as it is always the ultimate rebellion against every creative act prior to itself.
Anyone interested in reading about this in depth, Father Seraphim Rose wrote a work on it (you can skip the preface, which just explains it's a chapter of an uncompleted book): http://oodegr.co/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw8XE3j_c0U
FINIS
>>74134670
>>74134670
nuh uh
>>74134933
>>74134982
Would that it were so simple
>>74134670
But modern art isn't aesthetic at all
>>74136033
It is according to "spirit of the age" aesthetics, which values whatever is radical, fresh and different above everything else.
>>74134670
Oh god Constantine got rekt in /his/ and now comes back to /pol/ to lick her wounds
>>74136188
>which values whatever is radical, fresh and different above everything else.
So jewish brainwashing.
Nietzche's ideas really hasn't had much mainstream public significance, otherwise we wouldn't have the problem with widespread nihilism that we have now.
>>74137037
Nietzsche's ideas were sublated by nihilism. He wanted to tear down any concept of non-relative truth.
>>74137289
In other words, Nietzsche's idea of cure for nihilism in fact aggravates the disease, it doesn't cure it.
>le modern art is bad meme
Oh boy this thread again. I'll make it simple for you guys since my last post triggered a whole bunch of you fat autists:
Over the last couple hundred years people have question what constitutes art. What gives it value?
PRO TIP: It's not technical skill or what ever you guys consider to be asethetic.
The reason why art started to become so """"""BAD"""""" is because people started realizing that, with enough practice, literally ANYONE can rise to the levels od Da Vinci and all of the old masters. Andy Warhol (and many before him) really capitalized on this. It's always been rumored that Warhol actually never even touched any of 'his' paintings aside from signing them. They were all actually all created by his assistants. Did that matter? NO!!!!!!!
You can go into many layers of deconstruction to make """""SHIT""""" art meaningful.
Basically what gives art value now days is the message the artist is trying to convey and how well he conveys it thru his/her art. This is the reason why a lot of these shitty feminist artist are getting commissions by cities and government offices to display their art. Because THAT narrative is 'in' at the moment, not because art in general has devolved.
Some artist once said if you ever want to look at the blue prints of a generation, one must only look at what are was being made at the time.
Thats the Social aspect of what I'm trying to describe. NOTE: Anything really can be art, but that doesn't mean it's GOOD ART!!!!
Fucking idiots FFS
>>74137627
>Basically what gives art value now days
Is how fresh or new or exciting it is. The spirit of the age, the CURRENT YEAR
>>74137627
>shit on ground
>insert US toothpick flag
Look guys, social commentary!
>>74137966
>le brave men raising up the american flag over the ruins of WTC
OMG SO SIMILAR!!!!
>>74137966
>>74137846
>>74137627
>Because THAT narrative is 'in'
>>74137627
You're pretty good at using lots of words to say absolutely nothing.
Modern art is bad because it's uninspired, unemotive, requires no skill to make, and offers no aesthetic value, as opposed to old art which was inspiring, emotionally provoking, took skill to create, and was pleasing to the eyes.
Oh, and please for the love of God do not take this bullshit to /ic/. It's one of the last remaining internet communities of people who actually want to preserve good art.
>>74137627
>modern art is bad
>which means I like old art
Some old art is good, most of it is repetitive or just 'meh'. I haven't seem a piece of modern art that I liked. I don't know. I guess I've never been particularly impressed with visual art. Or maybe it's that visual art is a shitty medium for conveying meaning. That's more likely.
>>74138663
Wow you use such few words to spew out your own personal opinion. Great job missing the point of my post idiot!!!!!!!!!
LMAO!!!!
>>74134670
This not very well written. Try again.
>>74138804
Holy fuck dude. We get it. You are the forward thinking trend setter. Visual art shouldn't be about
"inspiring, emotionally provoking, took skill to create, and was pleasing to the eyes."
it should only be about 'convey messages'. God forbid someone believes art have some measurement beyond what is new, symbolic, critical and shallow.
>>74139147
Read the post again, in the context of the thread. IDK if you're this retarded or just thinking anything outside of pandering to traditional art is DEGENERATE!!!
>>74138771
I think it has a lot to do with a lot of the Medieval and Renaissance artist having something like religion that added so much value to their painting OF religious context. Imagine if those same masters were alive today, they would be just as """"shit"""" as any modern artist today. We dont have the dogma of religious breathing down on society as they did back then. Even now, religion still has a place in some but most dont regard it as highly as it once was.
>>74137627
>literally ANYONE can rise to the levels od Da Vinci and all of the old masters
>that's why all my paintings look like vaginas
>>74139471
>We dont have the dogma of religious breathing down on society as they did back then
pfffffttttttttHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
the ironing
![39464_1721201[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Aw3vHvB.jpg "39464_1721201[1].jpg")
>>74138663
Depends on the artist honestly, whether they be modern or classic. A lot of older art can be very samey. Its technically impressive, but there never seems to be a whole lot of passion or a story there. You can only look at so many old, dead rich people for so long. It's not compelling in the least. Some modern art is crap too, but there's plenty of good art between the two.
Take this piece by Salvador Dali. Venus de Milo with Drawers. It's absurd, but that's part of the allure of the work and probably one of my favorites. It's silly and that is "the point."
nietzsche was a fag
>>74134670
>>74134702
u sound like a fag
>>74137606
He never postulated that nihilism was curable though, but rather a scenario where one became nihilistic because they are degenerating/impoverished life (or just part of a weak group getting dominated by a stronger group perhaps).
At best, in the case of nihilism, he posited that there is either active nihilism or passive nihilism; the former seeks to destroy everything that is weak, to borrow a metaphor "breaking and wiping away the rotten foundations of a rotten house to build a new one"; the latter -- passive nihilism -- would mean the person who is too weak to do anything, too degenerate in their vitality, so they are the person who cowers from the world, probably the typical /pol/ type who is depressed as hell and dreads waking up, looks forward to going to sleep, and would prefer to lay in bed staring at the ceiling all of the hours in between.
Modern art is just a Jewish ruse to sell lazily made shit for tons of money.
>>74134670
He was a try hard and the reason modern art sucks is because there is an actual movement to subvert true culture and replace it with pleb culture for mass consumption. Modern art is Globalist Jew aesthetic
>>74139788
Retarded. How ugly and unaesthetic. Would you put that in your house with the drawers? How about without??
>>74139788
older art is "samey" because the people making it were a bunch of similar smart as fuck men who had read the classics, and were taking part in the great conversation through their art. The conversation isn't all over the place. It's very "samey" and that's why it's so fucking great omg come on its 2016
>>74140064
I could put her in my office and store pens in her nipple drawers.
Art was destroyed when it was taken over by jews.
Remove jews, and art returns.
c'mon /pol/ you know I'm right
Art History Major here.
I'll tell you exactly why modern art exists through a short history lesson with the movement that started it all.
World War 1 and the age of industrialization changed the entire world, and it FUCKED with people's minds because it made everything seem unstable and fleeting. The Dadaist movement believed that "reason and logic" was responsible for WWI and that the answer was the irrational and political anarchy. (Some prominent Dada artists have depicted Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin sitting beside them in their artwork, as well as
Some Dada artwork also made commentaries on how women and Dada-ism had made strides in "destabilizing the world" by depicting a map of Europe and the countries that had allowed women to vote in their work (lower right pic related).
Modern art is literally feminism and communism.
>>74142664
Dadaism if anything was the last in the chain. Reason was a rebellion against Revelations, utility was a rebellion against reason, aesthetics were a rebellion against utility, and Dadaism etc were a rebellion against aesthetics, they are an expression of destructivism that seeks to mutilate and annihilate.
>>74142921
That's a fair point, do you consider "reason" neoclassicism? It was part of the enlightenment after all.
You could go further back and argue that Romanticism was a movement that encouraged "feeling" over reason, although Romanticism and Impressionism which came afterward are still beautiful since the degenerate bullshit hadn't taken into effect yet. At least we can both agree that the "photography made realistic painting obsolete" meme is a garbage argument since it's much bigger than that. it's nice to talk to someone that's intelligent in these sort of things.
Is it just me or has the introduction of hi-tech photography marked the "downfall" of art.
Think about it, in this day and age, why spend hours of effort painting this beautiful scenery when you can take a picture of it.
With this in mind, art started branching out into more obscure/abstract ways of expression. I guess in a capitalist sense, if something is different, it inherently has value which is why a lot of modern art seems to be ''''''bad''''''' because it's seems so esoteric.
Feel free to call me out though, these are just my thoughts.
>>74143527
The great distinction between Biblical verse and Biblical prose is the prose uses a much more limited vocabulary, since repetition is a key literary device for reflecting recurring themes, which conveys a continuity of action. Biblical verse, however, is more concerned with description than action, and therefore utilizes a greater vocabulary so as to convey detail. Yet both by far the most common style of both Biblical prose and Biblical verse is parataxis, which is optimal for conveying parallels and parables. In fact, Hosea 10:12 overtly names this Biblical style, saying God shows visions to his prophets and speaks through them through “parables”--the word here is a form of the word “likeness”, what God created man in. Indeed, man was created to become like God (most Church Fathers gloss that God is being sarcastic when he says Adam and Eve will become like him for eating from the Tree of Knowledge), but the Fall prevented that; God aims to restore the likeness (Zechariah 12:8). So Biblical aesthetic has blatant spiritual significance. Now that we have a rudimentary understanding of in literature, let’s examine this aesthetic in art and music.
cont
>>74143960
In ancient times, the primary function of art was (according to Aristotle, but obviously not totally) catharsis (similar to blockbusters or tearjerkers today). But with the rise of Christianity, art took on a new purpose that was beyond the synthesis of the binary Dionysian-Apollonian or ever Socratic spoken of by Nietzsche; art became about expressing truth which could *not be expressed by reason*. This was not emotional truth (we will get to that), but a higher true which reason could not order properly. Art eventually became about materialist truth or emotion later on in the West (it started in the Gothic period Giotto's "The Massacre of the Innocents" is a good example). Materialist art. especially in the Renaissance, started to trend toward an extremely fleshy aesthetic in contract to the Christians aesthetic (Byzantine icon of Adam and Eve for illustration).
cont
>>74144007
Now it is not that Christian art did not have emotion in it, but that it was not about Catharsis (this is why Orthodox icons do not depict Christ suffering on the cross, but always already dead, they do not aim for some catharsis). The major difference between Christian literature and Christian pictorial art is that the former conveys constant action, whereas the latter is tries to convey a stillness for holy figures, an absence of action and total calm (sometimes contrasted with the less than holy figures); this utilizes the medium very well, since pictorial art is frozen, whereas text is active.
I think the basic understanding of how this ties with Biblical aesthetic can be shown in Christ's parables, literature within literature. Here we see the full purpose and dynamic of Biblical of aesthetic in the illustration of truth. Touching back on Aristotle's theory on the function of art, I contrast the pagan Aesop's literature to illustrate the same aesthetic as the Christian function of art.
It's not about catharsis, it is about expressing truth in a way reason cannot. This is why art ceased to be naturalist (by "naturalist" I don't meant the movement, but the realistic portrayal of dimension and anatomy) during the Christian period, because naturalism is a kind of rationalism of art (not naturalism couldn't be used, it occasionally was, but here it was an element employed to facilitate a particular truth of a particular piece of art, as opposed to something always employed for the sake of being considered more true in and of itself).
cont
>>74144101
To give you a visceral contrast between these two aesthetics, Here is a Roman Catholic hymn, followed by an Orthodox hymn, follow by a Roman Catholic hymn, follow by an Orthodox hymn. The Roman Catholic hymns embody the modernist aesthetic, whereas the Orthodox hymns embody the Christian aesthetic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0iOBOIwQ2o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mgn2Y1Yvhs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8r5r4R2yuE
With the onset of modernity, truth ceased to be expressed in this unique, Biblical way (the Bible is also not about catharsis). Instead truth was expressed either rationally or trough catharsis, the return to the Apollonian-Dionysian synthesis. This is why modern variants of Christianity have difficulty reading the Bible, everything in is read as either cathartic or rational truth. This is also why scientism is increasingly marginalizing the humanities where they are not cathartic, since they are seen as inadequate to expression rational truth. We have lost touch with the use of art and philosophy as expression of truth in a way unique to art, that isn't about either rationalism or being an emotion junkie.
Returning to the idea of truth as subject vs truth as object, the portrayal of truth as subject instead of object is in Orthodox art, you can see it in any Orthodox parish. Pic related
>white men
>worshipping Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef, self-proclaimed son of the ancestral Jewish god YHWH
>IN THE CURRENT YEAR
>>74143960
>>74144007
>>74144101
>>74144156
Do you post on other boards? I swear I've read this before but it could be my imagination.
Apollo ideology theorizes that catharsis is obtained through the concept of reason, but I think the largest obstacle that blocks this discussion is the theories like Nihilism that you cannot disprove or prove (you can do that with religion as well, though). Nihilism implies that we cannot define ANYTHING, because all is subjective, so therefore it's all pointless.
This thinking however is also the reason modern art exists.
>>74134670
>Nietzsche
NO
Marx and Weber
F-
Apply yourself
Modern art sucks because it's produced by people who aren't artists.
>>74136033
>he can't discern from modern and post-modern
Even romanitcism is modern art. I doubt you don't like it.
Obligatory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya2sJBTLVzg
>this thread - retards who never touched a paintbrush arguing about art.
You fuckers should just shut the fuck up really. Bet most of you retards don't even have your own definition what art is. Stay plebian and njoy Thomas Kinkade. You opinion on art doesn't even fucking matter lmao. You just think whatever satisfies you aestheticaly is gud art. Nope, thats just entertainman art. Real art makes you think or even mad.
That being said, a lost of conceptual artist, intermedia, supermedia etc are also fucking shit but that will show in longrun.
Regarding craftmanship and skill. Yes it's better to have those, but that alone is not enough for great art. Also /ic/ can go choke on dick with their degenrate porn, dragon, soldiers.
>>74134670
Modern Art is just another post modern disaster based on a moral pragmatism and cultural elitism of social self expression as the highest form of thought.
art thread?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mHVy_hH8vc
>>74144905
I post on /his/ and /lit/
By that definition of nihilism, Nietzsche is a nihilist.
