/lit/ - Literature

>>10173804
>Byron was in the 20th Century
I did not know that.

>>10173819
Elaborate.

>>10173804
it's the jews' fault

because the directions since post-liturgical history of thought have been wrestling with the upending or justification of "the ideal". Nietzsche didn't say for no reason that God is dead you know, if the metaphysics of the ideal weren't in a crisis if not outright already discarded

>>10173804
There is no such thing as apolitical art. The ability to make art requires a coming together of life-coincidences like education, intelligence, health, and motivation which can only result from a politically-desirable life. Moreover, any story has inherently political themes, even if the story is executed with an apolitical veneer. Being apolitical is a political act at any rate, which seeks to ignore worldly problems in favor pretending one is outside of them. Being apolitical has political consequences, especially the more people consider themselves that way. Even the most innocuous-seeming crafts hobbies (forms of art in their own right) require economic privilege and access to favorable circumstances of international trade. Art is inherently political at every level, just like sex. You might not like it, but that's the way it is. Denying it is just an adapted policy; and policies are ideological units.

>>10173988
That doesn't mean you have to enjoy art for its political messages. This is also enveloping way more in the "political" sphere than is logical. If emotions are apolitical to you and you feel it necessary to label them as such then the ideology has consumed you, not necessarily the people who are driven just by their emotions.

>>10173988
lmao found the pseud

>>10174017
>That doesn't mean you have to enjoy art for its political messages.
You're correct.
>This is also enveloping way more in the "political" sphere than is logical.
Maybe.
>If emotions are apolitical to you
Did I say this?
>and you feel it necessary to label them as such then the ideology has consumed you,

Which ideology? Everyone is consumed by ideology. Being apolitical is itself an ideology. It is merely opposed to acknowledging or dealing with the far-reaching consequences and implications of one's lifestyle.

>not necessarily the people who are driven by just their emotions.

Emotions are political. Diplomacy, for instance, is often granted or denied based on the emotional stance of the host.

My point is that the concern for beauty, art, and so on hasn't disappeared or been buried under the concern for the political, rather it has been synthesized with the concern for the political.

>>10174030
>Which ideology? Everyone is consumed by ideology.
That one.

>it has been synthesized with the concern for the political
Hence the thread and the OP question.

>>10174024
Thanks for letting me know. I hope finding yourself wasn't too difficult.

>>10174037
>That one.
Yes. That is an ideology. And you could say I am consumed by it, but I honestly don't see how denying the inherent political nature of art (a different ideology, being prescribed) is going to get me any further.

>Hence the thread and the OP in question.

But my refutation is that the OP is wrong, the concerns he is concerned with haven't been lost, just synthesized with something that was previously ignored altogether. It would be something if there was no philosophical discussion on beauty and what-have-you, but there is. There is more than ever. It is not buried either. You can find a million articles critiquing a million works based on the aesthetics and feels alone, and which do not acknowledge, or plainly ignore, anything political. The proclaimed absence OP is concerned with is not absent at all.

>>10174024
Yeah, the pseud is the guy with the reasonable post, not the guy who blames the jews, or the guy scanning for "pseuds"

inb4 jidf shill bill volume 2

No offense to OP, but whenever someone talks about narrative in contrast to "beauty" or the "sublime" I can only imagine KANTBOT ironically unironically semi-ironically unironically sperging about Goethe on Twitter.

>>10173804
>only enjoying art when it represents certain moral or political messages
Has been the case for basically the whole of human existence. Since its inception art has been conceived for a didactic purpose. "Art for art's sake" is a degenerate invention of the 19th century. Fucking moron

see: Johnson criticising Shakespeare for not being moral enough

>>10174097
There have always been social pandering faggots, yes. It hasn't always and only been about that though. You undermine humanity's love for good stories if you assert otherwise.

Modernism happened. The intellectual (mind) came to the forefront in lieu of the aesthetic (retinal), thus the art world became increasingly more concerned with ideas; fine art now exists as a vessel for discourse, not self-contained objects that are viscerally, immediately appealing to the senses. Because decorative art is, you know, so bourgeois and lame!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trxa99NOmsA

>>10174188
>tarko/v/sky

>>10174151
lol this cant be real

>>10174151
Any info or source on how modernist art centered around intellectual ideas (as in the mind) relates to classical and romantic art that attempts to embody or transcend "the idea" (god)? Is impressionism just an advanced form of romanticism concerned only with embodying aesthetic idealism? How does post-modernism relate? Or am I out of it, how do I into artistic philosophy

>>10174264
don't

>>10174419
>t.