/lit/ - Literature

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7AinOxULrU

No, there isn't. Art was diluted but never overcome.

Memes

>>10826206
Was Schönberg the Übermensch?

the revolutionary thing to do would be to create something so good that it creates a community around it, not another elitist circle jerk

Context completely changed. You certainly won't find any 'revolutionary' shit in the (dead) fine arts.

Read the BTC whitepaper

No because there are no big identifiable artmovements today. Also there arent any conventions left to overcome.

>>10826206
it's because ur pleb and cant see truly revolutionary stuff happening right in front of your nose

>>10826378
da

breaking paradigms is a modernist meme. we are long past that, kid

>>10826206
Filmmaker Pedro Costa

>>10826472
Flaherty already did docufiction and cinema vérité in the fucking 20s

>>10826484
Only seen one Flaherty but I believe Costa is doing something totally new, especially in Juventude em Marcha

>>10826206
Art already has broken with the past. There are no conventions to be broken. In fact, it is a convention to break conventions.
If contemporary art seems stiff to you you have no idea what you're talking about. Artists can do literally everything now and call it art.

>>10826506
>Artists can do literally everything now and call it art.
Thats nice but why would anyone pay attention to what they make?

>>10826206
Art will do the full circle into returning to (or aiding) a religious experience.

>>10826535
That has nothing to do with the theme of this thread.
And btw when I say "literally everything", I actually mean that. Artists can squeeze paint out of their vaginas onto the canvas or paint a hyperrealistic still life. Composers can write pieces for amplified matchsticks scratching grind paper, or beautiful neoclassical and neoromantic pieces. And so on and so on, there's no doctrine that can be overcome anymore.

>>10826535
because sometimes it's good.
also because a lot of people have no taste.

>is there any revolutionary art being made today

pop skull (2007)
bloodborne (2015)

>>10826206
Kanye West

>>10826378
It's written "Schoenberg." Don't have to thank me.

>>10826748
but oe and ö are the same thing

>>10826748
Embarrassing

>>10826206

>>10826748
>It's written "Schoenberg." Don't have to thank me.

Depressing thread

>>10826506
>Artists can do literally everything now and call it art.
>give me a turd and i will theorise it
postmodernism has left us with a lot of turds and the lingering idea that pointing out heavily theorised turds is some act of violence, oppression or tyranny. The word discrimination has negative baggage when it's something you have to do every minute of the day.
>>10826544
Then it's not art. It's craft in the service of religion. Decoration, graphic design, propaganda, none of these are art due to their utility.
ITT: kids who think 'novelty' is a positive word.

>>10826799
>Then it's not art. It's craft in the service of religion. >Decoration, graphic design, propaganda, none of these are art due to their utility.
Have you never heard of Raphael? Michelangelo? Da Vinci? What about Palestrina, and a German guy named "Bach"?

>>10826805
They're all very good but it's ultimately still just craft in the service of religion, i wouldn't call them artists.

>>10826805
Those guys were no better than my plumber, who knows his craft. They made the pipes run.

>>10826799
>postmodernism has left us with a lot of turds and the lingering idea that pointing out heavily theorised turds is some act of violence, oppression or tyranny. The word discrimination has negative baggage when it's something you have to do every minute of the day.
This has nothing to do with the theme of this thread either. It barely has anything to do even with my post. Are you schizophrenic?

>Then it's not art. It's craft in the service of religion.Decoration, graphic design, propaganda, none of these are art due to their utility.
You're a braindead nigger my man

>>10826830
>the single greatest artists of all time aren't artists
Then what the fuck is art to you? Rick and Morty?

>>10826748

>>10826844
Art is the creation of an aesthetic response purely for its own sake, the pursuit of Beauty unsullied by ideology. Art is never political, and any religious motive at all is political. Well made propaganda is still propaganda.

>>10826886
So Rick and Morty, right.

>>10826886
Your idea of art is an ideology. If you produced art according to your quite precise theory of art, you would further this very theory, and thus your work would be propaganda. You're garbage.

>>10826886
Today I learned that 95% of art isn't art because some cretin on 4chan said so.

>>10826892
I have literally no idea how you could reach that conclusion. Rick and Morty is nakedly ideological and not remotely beautiful in any aspect.

>>10826900
I wouldn't be furthering any theory, I would be creating Beauty, which needs no context and has no content.

>>10826886
>literally everything that was art before some virgin neckbeard started shitposting on /lit/ shouldn't be called art anymore
You're a dumb bitch, you know that?

>>10826922
>Raphael
>Michelangelo
>Da Vinci
>Palestrina
>Bach

>literally everything that was art

I'm not the dumb one here.

>>10826929
Those are only a couple of examples. The only purely aesthetic art, the one you'd be fine with, was what Debussy and Wilde did, decadent art. Throughout history art was made for various purposes, very rarely purely aesthetic, and if you're not aware of that while dictating what art should and shouldn't be, you should jump off a bridge.

Mozart was, in the end, just a propagandist as well.

>>10826945
>Throughout history art was made for various purposes, very rarely purely aesthetic
... and so very rarely art. Its OK to enjoy propaganda, but you shouldn't pretend it has the status of art. Be honest with yourself and others. Say after me: "I enjoy art AND ideologically motivated craft."

Is this some sort of master bait

>>10826805
>implying bach's work was ever "in service" of religion

>>10826964
>things are like this because *I* say so, the rest of the world doesn't matter
>I can redefine words according to my opinions
How postmodern

>>10827077
You say that as if your definition of art was more objective than mine, when in fact the opposite is true.

>>10826799
Religious experience is essentially the same activity as art done in truth. The spirit is stirred in the same manner. Art will in future be seen as truthful manifestation of the spirit or not.

>>10827179
>shaman make good stuff cuz he have good feel
>in future everybody can see whether shaman had good feel or not

No, because you require 50+ years or more of context well after an artist is dead and gone to say "yeah they really shook things up".

Only arrogant narcissists believe that no new art movements are happening or will happen. It's literally "everything has already been invented" retardation.

>>10826805
lol i liek that doggster

>>10826206
nope, but this guy is pretty good

>>10827444
lol where is his left tit

>>10826206
No, art went in a dead end direction

>>10826206
>Is there any truly revolutionary art today that breaks with the past and tries to rise above the conventions?
Many. All the time, especially in the present day.
The thing is, it's mostly all shit. 'shit' as in, it doesn't sound/look pleasant. Simply doing something uniquely different rarely corresponds with quality art. The best things come from extremely masterful and minute adjustments to very well-established conventions.

>>10826900
>thinking and doing anything is automatically ideological
Meaningless concept then, isn't it.

WILLIAM T VOLLMANN but /lit and the world dont know how to read

>>10826799
>Then it's not art. It's craft in the service of religion. Decoration, graphic design, propaganda, none of these are art due to their utility.
Paradise Lost? The Brothers Karamazov? The Divine Conedy? The Conference of the Birds? Rumi, Sanai, Hafiz, the Sufi poets in general?

None of this is art?

>>10827920
Of course it is, even a rabid anti-religious person like myself can see that

>>10827946
>even a rabid anti-religious retard like myself can see that
ftfy

>>10827955
t. christcuck

The pedigree of what we call 'art' only exists because of a long continuous history of the metaphysics privileged in the West to which we associate the highest forms of art. It's an academic term, so talking of an art that is hypothetically situated outside of this tradition, you would no longer be talking about 'art' as such. There can be no break with the past, nor a rise above conventions, there can only be the illusion of such that still derives its 'meaning' or function as a 'meaningful' object/concept within the limits of art history. Think of this: would it be revolutionary if it were exhibited in the gallery or museum? And if an art work deliberately tried to avoid the gallery, does it still not implicate the gallery?

>>10827974
All wrong. Fuck off back to /r/eddit.

>>10826830
>>10826886
The highest forms of art are craft purely in the service of onto-theology, which includes religion. Aesthetics justifies itself with recourse to the very same metaphysics, when it actually comes down to what beauty -is-, what its function -is-, how we derive pleasure and for what purpose, etc. L'art pour l'art, which you advocate, is just a 19th century spin, and a purposely blind one, on the network of ideas that allow art to generate meaning. It falls short of being adequate for two reasons: 1. it does not account for all art, and is as useful as saying 'all art has the colour blue otherwise it is not art'; 2. it is impossible to argue on the exterior of art that its exterior does not matter, because the justification you have just set up is still required for it to efface itself and leave only the 'aesthetic' character of the art which has been qualified.

>>10828007
He's right you dumb cunt.

>>10826206
my music

>>10827399
>No, because you require 50+ years or more of context well after an artist is dead and gone to say "yeah they really shook things up".
no, you don't
face it, there are no big guys in contemporary art

>>10828056
didnt know MC Ride posted here

>>10828026
babby's first reading of "The Origin of the Work of Art"

Unironically this and many electronic artists.
https://soundcloud.com/tsuruda/everyone-sounds-like
Prove me wrong.

>>10826440
/thread

>>10828161
>maximalist electronic music
>revolutionary

your post might've been relevant if we were in 2010, sperg

>>10828173
If it doesn't sound new to you, your palette has been numbed and desensitized by an over-wash of irascibility.

>>10828199

>>10828199
>lives in the post-post-internet era
>Mute, Hippos in Tanks, bubblegum pop, Flying Lotus, Arca, Giant Claw, Rustie, M.E.S.H., PC Music are all things past
>unironically claims yet another adhd Ableton-core producer is not only relevant to music, but doing revolutionary work

just fucking LOL

my diary desu

Why does art need to break with the past?
Post-modernism and the 20th century already brought all the chaos and the necessity to cause shock. There's nothing new.
Art should strive for beauty and show things that value the whole universe and existence.

>>10828199
stfu, you probably can't even into Schoenberg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEY9lmCZbIc

>>10828294
>Why does art need to break with the past?
because fuck the bourgeoisie xDDD

>>10826206
Post-post-modernism stream of metamodernism consciousness

>>10828294
>Art should strive for beauty and show things that value the whole universe and existence.
t. has kinkade paintings in his home

>>10828300
t. bourgie scum

>>10828296
you're right, because this is garbage

This bread made me ponder a lil. Can you recommend me some books on art?

>>10827444
No it isnt.
Are you fucking blind?

>>10827444
Is that dfw

>>10828812
no anon

>>10828790
Gombrich - The Story of Art
Janson - History of Art
the starter kit

>>10826378
no his music sucks

>>10826229
Unironically this.

>>10826886
he is right but the renaissance masters are still artists, what they made wasn’t even christian most of it was hermeticism disguised so the church wouldn’t kill them for being pedophiles. also i do hope the christfags chimping over this statement realize, Donatello, Raphael, Boticellic, Michaelangelo, Bernini were all homosexuals with young male lovers who did not practice christianity but Greco-Egyptian mysticism. The Renaisance is about as Catholic as a burlesque show in Vienna

>>10828870
But Raphael died of a fever after fucking his gf too much.

>>10828861
Have you tried his romantic stuff like gurrelieder? It's interesting to watch how his style evolved until the second quartet which has three tonal movements and the finale descending into free atonality

>>10828790
John Berger - Ways of Seeing
Peter Burger - Theory of the Avant-Garde
also this >>10828852

>>10828870
Is this true or it is just a myth? Is there serious historiography about it?

>>10828870
>christfags chimping over this statement realize, Donatello, Raphael, Boticellic, Michaelangelo, Bernini were all homosexuals with young male lovers who did not practice christianity but Greco-Egyptian mysticism
What are you talking about.

>>10828280
your ears vs mine then

>>10828158
Not an argument

>>10826499
>Only seen one Flaherty
Then you're not qualified to call something new. Get in the back of the line.
>Costa, Bresson
Bresson thrills through austerity. Costa beautifies through elongated abstractness. They both became 2001. Overexpansion and overabstraction which branch into obviousness and banality. They are both vulgarizations of Flaherty whose complexity goes beyond every cinephile's head, whose emotional heft is gifted by the piercing of reality within the confines of it.

Bresson took reality, Flaherty's imprint on it, and the density of Dostoyevsky, and streamlined it to multiply questions based around narrative convergence (Brief Encounter and Bicycle Thieves)

Bresson is vulgar because he is so direct. He stripped reality in reality, he did not pierce it. Bresson is no truth whatsoever. He's psychological imprint. He's literature. And he appeals t the middlebrow literary majors that consume film circles (i.e. cinephiles, dropout_bear)

In short, Bresson is bullshit.

Costa is editing out all exposition and maintains only quiet moments and glances so you're forced to peer outside his pidgeonholes. He is further abstaction of Bresson, and it is abstraction to the point of obviousness. To aim for closeups and design around those as your nucleus is to be obvious and to abuse emotional investment with technique, to aim your camera in obfuscated postions forcing an impossibility of looking outside the frame is trickery. Flaherty is superior to each, his ideas are disguised by common, universal mundanity, not through precise editing. Flaherty lulls the viewer into a transient state where you begin to not notice the edits and parallels he is making.

1948 was the end

>>10828870
>but the renaissance masters are still artists
No they're not, you dumbfuck. Practice doesn't change creation and intent.

>>10826499
>but I believe
Pixie dust. It's what faggots use to convince themselves is truth. Why do cinephiles not think about their medium. Composition in an imagistic and pictorial sense is stealing from painting and other visual arts. The medium Griffith, Flaherty, Eisenstein, and Stroheim occupy is one of phenomenological presentation (reality). What cinephiles crave is distortion of reality, but the prior seek to create and capture a layered reality. The medium is formally limited and hinged on the dualistic nature of life, decoupage is what matters. Give me a single profound quality existing in any films like the one in linked post.

Flaherty resurrected tradition within selected sects of peoples that had moved on, he made peoples enact their own myths. Flaherty equalized these elements into a transparent continuity that was entirely divorced by the nature of his rigorous studies. He invested and sought connection to the metastructural framework of continuous reality therefore I'm always hesitant to call anything by Flaherty, Stroheim, or Griffith a film, but if Moana occupied that medium, it would be the very best of it without a doubt, no question. Flaherty has suppressed conflict, Flaherty suppressed juxtaposition, the prolongued sound implementation only enhances. A non-diegetic done through gestated diegetic capture. All of his elements are divorced and suppressed yet still united, the sense of temporal continuity as well is entirely divorced in Moana. Flaherty long achieved his sought distillation of essence, but Moana in particular quesitons the essence of life without ever asking the question. Every element in a Flaherty work is divorced but they are united together contrapuntally to ask the eternal questions regarding time, space, and history with allusions to a future enacted in the present. The genius of Griffith and Flaherty is their search for the ultimate suppression of conflict, the abstraction of conflict to attain intrajuxtaposition. This is why this dumdum >>93842054 considers Que Viva Mexico a failure. Because it is Eisenstein fully learning from Isn't Life Wonderful and Moana. Searching for the answer, the truth of a peoples' culture and its effects on their structuralist power stasis. He is no longer looking for the physical but the metaphysical.

>>10826499
Frankly, it's unheard of. Flaherty's form is something never done before, and the metadynamic interaction between him and his wife (a question of carrying the torch when significant other is gone) are a superior Straub-Huillet

How to metaphysically represent and resurrect through a preexisting reality

How to Flaherty

You CANNOT recreate history. Cinephiles are flabbergasted when they are presented this notion by Straub-Huillet, but Griffith, Flaherty, and Eisenstein already proved this. They shaped history. They changed history. They proved history is always present and is ultimately as malleable as reality itself.

Why do philosophers worship Hegel and Kant, the Greeks

Literary enthusisasts worship The Bible, Shakespeare, Joyce

Music enthusiasts worship the Classical Masters

Painting enthusiasts worship the Old Masters

But cinephiles worship Tarkovsky, Costa, Bresson, Ruiz, Straub-Huillet and consider Griffith, Eisenstein, Flaherty, and Stroheim outmoded "pioneers".

Ultimately, Griffith's works highlight the dialectic between modernity and a Victorianism then seen as innately traditional. Despite upholding Victorianism as a cherished ideal, his work points to its limitations for Progressivism's very different society - one with its own understanding of public/private spheres, gender, progress, and vision. Griffith was not an old-fashioned director - his work displayed the Progressive era's modernity and his dialectic didactism intervened in its dilemmas. For example, this approach is encapsulated in Griffith's dialectic between voluptuary and spirituelle women. His excess of rhetorical flourishes and incompatible systems of graphic inscription belie his own dreams of representing the medium as a form of universal language. This would be utterly meaningless without the emphatic display of the opposite: a representation of femininity that vilifies all of the excesses of the body. The one cannot exist without the other. Indeed, many of the paradoxes and problematics of female embodiment in his works can be traced as a metaphysical conduit for vestigial beliefs and sociological concern

>>10830433
*didacticism

>>10826499
He sought to eliminate and minimize the dialectics inherent in mechanical reproduction whereas all those prior men realized and harnessed the multiplicity of affectation and imprint for comprehensive truth. They also already accounted for the transitive qualites of historical representation (see: typage, and decoupage of qualitative discourse).

>>10826206
why does everything have to be revolutionary

>>10830754
I'm not saying it has to be, I just wonder whether such concept is possible today and if not, what are the consequences

>>10830757
what if we tried to make it good instead? we have already deconstructed and torn apart too much, it's like a fuckin minecraft anarchy server out here

>>10830761
Because there is no objective "good" anymore

>>10826240
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

>>10830761
I just have a vague feeling that if we can only do pastiche, something is wrong. Maybe I'm drawn to extremes. Maybe I'm just projecting my longing for some impact or redemption from art.

>>10830444
>>10830433
>>10830376
>>10830398
jesus christ film-fags are pretentious.
art-film sucks compared to literature.
film is for movies/flicks, let's face it.

>>10826886
So art as a practice only exists for 150 years maybe?

You guys can't even get the basics right. There's a clear difference between making art of religious nature and art IN SERVICE OF religion.

A Bach Chorale is not merely a tool or a decorative piece, it's an exaltation in itself.

>>10826886
t. théophile gautier

>>10830816
How could you know?

Propaganda

>>10828861
>composes beautiful late romantic pieces such as Verklärte Nacht and Pelleas und Melisande
>frees western music from tonality
nothing personal, untermensch

>>10830816

jesus christ book fags are pretentious.
literature sucks compared to art films.
literature is for stephen king/rupi kaur, let's face it.

If you ask an ordinary man to give his opinions on painting, classical music or the literary greats, the vast majority of them will rightfully admit their ignorance of said mediums and, at best, give you a sincere "I like it" or "I'm not into it"

Yet, every single college freshman chump with a Letterboxd account will promptly wax poetics and give you an essay with their really really important opinions on cinema's classics, even though they lack any expertise on said medium at all.

Why is film criticism so vulgar? Why is film so disrespected as an artform?

>>10826414
>>10826830
I have never read a more retarded post on /lit/. And I've been here through the Reddit invasion. I wish I was on my PC so I could post an ultra-high res image of Shiggy Diggy face. Please end yourself.

>>10828056
Post some then.

>>10826748

>>10826229
I thought we grew out of screamo rap

>>10826229
is this a make a wish dream for that black kid with progeria

>>10828887
Haven't you noticed it yet? It is awfully common for important figures to be called faggots in an attempt to discredit them. But of course no one dares say that because it's homophobic. I remember cases where they claimed some figures with 8 children were in the closet. That's what the funding of the gender studies department is for.

Yes, but it's either obscure or hard to find.
Most art become extremely commercial, made mostly for selling rather than what art was originally for.

>>10831469
How originality-for do you mean here? Most of all of what we think of art has been made for commercial reasons in part.

>>10830935
Because cinema has become the medium of art-for-the-masses. Not to say cinema can’t be high art.

>>10826206

terms like Visionary, Psychedelic, Abstract and Surreal, when applied to any art will provide a host of strong works that really are the pinnacle of technical and memetic acumen. There's a lot more of this than you might think; I'm surprised with how much there is and often find new artists all the time with incredible works.

All ideas are cyclical, they come and go. What was one revolutionary in the past is no longer the same today. All things change in a dynamic environment. I feel it's best to appreciate and share artworks, regardless of the medium, that radiate the strongest ideas, values and semblances.

Example: while the shock value of surrealism and dada might not be relevant anymore, the writings, movies and the manifesto itself still hold water. I'm curious what present day film makers, not the critics, would think of Luis Bunuel. Whether we see direct causal links or not, for how ideas progress forward, such things have immense influence and the potential for them to influence is greater today with the internet.

>>10826886

Yes, it's called vaporwave. At least until it got popular.

>>10826206
Get out a contemporary art book from the library. Usually the works and artists inside will all be challenging forms, doing something different. An artist isn't notable unless they are revolutionary, at least in terms of material.

>>10831662
Surrealism is an outdated movement that died in the 40s. Millennials only like it because their lost with scattered historical assembly as their only resort for pleasure. From the romantic to the modern.

>>10830924
>failed to stick
>contemporary composers ignore atonality
>only good for horror music and unlistenable Ferneyhough