ITT: Shit taste indicators
You're probably a faggot if you dislike IJ, I agree.
>>7467328
any kind of tattoo anywhere on the body that isn't directly related to military service
>>7467328
De gustibus non est disputandum
/TT
>>7467328
You post on a Somalian Pilates image board.
>>7467396
>aesthetics are purely subjective
i understand the sentiment, but it's simply wrong.
let's take women as an example:
when the population is not facing any kind of famine or strife, thin women are seen as attractive. the romantic period saw a drop in the affinity for large breasts, but that brief period is an indicator of social engineering rather than innate desire.
there is an evolutionary component to aesthetics that can't be denied. while it can be influenced by society, biology remains the starting point for what we define as "looking good." the hammer and chisel of society can only serve to break/reform what's already there.
>>7467461
You don't understand what subjective means.
>>7467390
what about prison time
>>7467475
if by subjective, you mean "open to interpretation, "then pretty much everything's subjective and the word loses all meaning
>>7467482
what about it?
>>7467518
NOONE used the word like you did.
>>7467522
give your definition then.
>>7467461
All I can see: spooks.
>>7467540
>postmodernism is a mustard sandwich with no other filling
>no it's not
>what's your definition then
>>7467586
just because you consider my definition absurd doesn't make you any less obligated to give your own definition.
i guess post modernism get's a little break from that seeing as it's practically founded upon defying definition. but that makes post modernism inconsistent, not deep. same with aesthetics.
on the far extents of the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" sentiment, you can shit on a plate, write "bureaucracy" on it, and call it art. if you agree that the shit plate is art, go ahead. but don't be surprised when the vast majority just calls it shit
>>7467614
>just because you consider my definition absurd doesn't make you any less obligated to give your own definition
This is strictly speaking accurate.
Everything thematic in IJ is in the Recognitions alongside many more themes, better prose, and an overall superior philosophy.
>>7467634
>IJ
i havnt touched this place in a while. what is IJ?
>>7467646
the meme in op
>>7467654
oh, ok. never read it myself.
i migrated to cripplechan a while back and my presence here is really just a product of nostalgia for my old home. isaw hiroJEWki's post and made a thread bitching about it there but i guess /his/ replaced the non-/lit/ threads that would normally be posted here
>"It's all relative"
>"My pronouns are.."
>"I really like Harry Potter"
>"Speaking as a..."
>"I listen to hip-hop music"
>"I don't like "classical" music"
>"I read Young Adult Fiction"
>"I have a Tumblr"
>"I un-ironically like Zizek"
>"I ironically like Zizek"
>"Anime is an artform"
>"Videogames are an artform"
>"No I haven't read the Bible"
>"I have an edgy contrarian opinion on Shakespeare"
>"Shakespeare was actually an African Woman"
>>7467697
>not ironically liking shishek
that man is a brilliant punchline to the joke that is leftism. not liking him is just a sign of a lack of a sense of humor
>>7467461
>there is an evolutionary component to...
everytime I see this I always expect to see some lazily constructed and overly simple evo.psych. explanation that is supported with little evidence
I am yet to be disappointed
>>7467697
kill yourself
>>7467697
>not liking slavman memekek
>>7467759
it's "lazily constructed" because it's based on reasoning.
if you understand evolution, you shouldn't need the details spoonfed to you. if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.
i am well aware of the naturalistic fallacy, not everything natural is necessarily "right." but if you disagree, you need a specific argument to back up your disagreement. especially when it comes to something as animalistic as aesthetics
>>7467788
>something as animalistic as aesthetics
Yeah, i forgot about all those wall paintings done by orang-utans
I always did think Rembrandt's the Night Watch awakened in me something animalistic - it's those big hats and all the shadows
Not to mention Jackson Pollock - those splodges take me back to the good ol days hunting in the savanna.
Where would we be without evolutionary psychology when it comes to aesthetics?
>>7467894
i sense a metric fuckton of sarcasm in your post.
again: if you have a specific argument against my own, make it known. but if your disagreement is simply "i don't like it," then admit your ignorance and cease partaking in the discussion.
aesthetics, like any science, has evolved over time and much of our artistic works have become better as time has progressed. but just because evolution has taken its coarse doesn't make it any less animalistic.
>>7467927
art has not 'evolved' in any biological sense. It doesn't have a directly adaptive problem to solve
>biology remains the starting point for what we define as "looking good."
then why have human beings - who we are to assume are the same biologically - constantly changing what they consider to be aesthetically pleasing?
Do people prefer Mondrian to Caravaggio because of the amount of food available?
Evo Psych is just a useless mode of analysis for aesthetics
>>7467927
>much of our artistic works have become better as time has progressed
show me an artist 'better' than Michelangelo
>>7467788
aesthetics is social, not animalistic.
It is an advanced form of communication, you stupid shit.
>>7467943
Not who you're replying to but cultural movements and novelty creating a kind of sexual selection within artistic communities is about the only biological answer that I feel can be applied. You can agree or disagree, there are no stats or research to back it up, I'm just pulling it out of my ass as a possible explaination, maybe there's another one that works.
t. geneticist
It occurs to me that the debate in this thread serves only to solve captchas for Skynet.
It also occurs to me that this board, and this site as a whole, is doing little more than the same.
It also occurs to me that I'm contributing to it right now.
>>7468009
But most "great" artists died childless, so there can't be a successful natural selection; da Vinci, Michelangelo, Van Gogh, Warhol, etc
>>7468012
>infinite meme isn't shit
wew
>>7468024
>most
>great
>>7467943
>art has not 'evolved' in any biological sense. It doesn't have a directly adaptive problem to solve
other than he supply v demand problem that all things face. as the supply of artists grows, the range of what is acceptable to the average person shrinks
>why have human beings - who we are to assume are the same biologically - constantly changing what they consider to be aesthetically pleasing?
they aren't on a large scale. what is generally considered aesthetically pleasing is always dependent on level of detail, well performed color contrast (there are whole books written about color theory, don't ask me to explain it here because i could not possibly do it justice) and agreement with the individual's philosophy.
the only one that can't be scientifically quantified is the philosophy part. that's where you get the camp of people who would call my previously mentioned shitplate "art." they are ignoring the art itself to justify their positive emotions toward it. that's not aesthetics, that's rationalization.
>>7467949
i, as an individual, can't really say who is better than anyone else. that requires statistical analysis controlled for environmental factors like culture
>>7467951
>aesthetics is social, not animalistic.
yes, that's why infants are afraid of spiders and snakes. that's why these same infants love kittens and bunnies. that's why the same infants who are comforted by the fluffy and fear the deadly don't give the slightest fuck about rocks other than pure curiosity.
>>7468020
the site's owner isn't helping this fact either
>inb4 i get b& for posting this image.
>>7468037
>yes, that's why infants are afraid of spiders and snakes.
Have you ever seen an infant? I have to stop my daughter from eating spiders
>>7468050
are you sure your daughter isn't retarded?
>>7468078
i have babysat before and ill admit, they can be stupid shits (little cunt wanted to play with sowing needles). but i have never seen a kid that doesn't lose their shit and fall in the fetal position when they see a spider. well, mostly girls. boys always have wanted to kill them. but that's only 'till they turn like 5. beyond that point curiosity gets the best of them and they'll stick their hands anywhere just to see what happens unless they're groomed otherwise and often regardless.
that just means curiosity is a greater factor in children that evolutionary fear
>>7468095
>that just means curiosity is a greater factor in children that evolutionary fear
or, evolutionary fear is minor and is mostly just misinterpreted cultural priming
>>7468118
>any kind of priming
>minor
In terminum initium nostrum init
>>7467328
The collegiate male white guy canon is usually a pretty strong red flag.
Authors: Bukowski, Kerouac, Rand, Burroughs, Ginsberg, Ellis, Palahniuk, Hemingway, Thompson
Movies: The Big Lebowski, Pulp Fiction, V for Vendetta, Watchmen, Drive... there's some other shit I'm not thinking of. Donnie Darko I guess? Lots of shit.
>>7468175
>not being a collegiate male white guy
i think you're in the wrong place
>>7468175
The Dark Knight, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and Fight Club. Fuckin doi what's wrong with me
>>7467586
If you aren't going to give the definition you think is correct, don't bother trying to disagree with his.
>>7468280
If you say so. I'm gonna go eat a postmodernism.
>>7468175
>Not a collegiate male white guy
Hrmmmm what are you doing here
>>7467461
>Using "evo-psych" to try to explain things
>ever
>>7467788
No, its lazily constructed because its based purely on counterfactuals and assumptions that can never be proven.
>>7469028
Alas; poor Darwin.
>>7467697
Read the bible?
>>7467697
About half of these are pretty good. "Speaking as a ..." is a very good one. Zizek is based though, he's so much fun. I don't care how little sense his anecdotes make.
>>7467697
>>"I un-ironically like Zizek"
>>"I ironically like Zizek"
kek
Also, you missed an obvious one:
>Comics are called visual novels now and are a legitimate art form
>>7469028
Yeah because the brain is totally exempt from evolution. Mmmhmmm
>>7469520
>because the brain is totally exempt from evolution
>he seriously thinks that one have to believe this to be against evo psych
>>7467927
>aesthetics, like any science, has evolved over time
Explain the 80's.
>>7468025
I like it. About halfway through. I think it's funny and profound. I enjoy the prose.
fuggin fite me
>>7467461
Tell me why I think clouds and rainbows are beautiful when they don't even look like tits.
>>7468037
>what is generally considered aesthetically pleasing is always dependent on level of detail, well performed color contrast... agreement with the individual's philosophy.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? Can you give examples with reference to actual art-works?
