/lit/ - Literature

>>10855725
Because you can't change yourself but you can change art.

>>10855727
woah

Well done op you managed to make a worse argument than the hack scruton

>>10855725
He's actually cool looking but he dresses like an autistic fag

>>10855731
I was interested in humor more than arguments, but please enlighten me as to what would your argument be

>>10855725
Delete this thread OP.

>>10855725
He has a wife though, that's more than most of us will ever achieve

>>10855873
Hmm, yeah not bad. Qt daughter

>>10855725
Art taste depends on the persons wisdom, which is the part of soul that is graced by God.

>>10855884
taste is the enemy of art

>>10855893
>taste is the enemy of art

>>10855901
damn, did he die?

Scruton is Chad as fuck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoybTk6TEX4

Scruton is proto-Peterson

where do all these alt-right idiots keep coming from

>>10855873
Having a wife is not an achievement. Having a beautiful wife is.

>>10855881
damn! childless, boyfucking continental philosophers btfo for eternity

>>10855945
Going by his daughter his wife must have been a looker in her day

It's the tale of all critics. Film critics for example expect a perfect movie despite being incapable of creating one of their own.
Have you ever gotten an idea, thought it was the greatest thing ever, then got down to actually create it only to find that the result was a laughable attempt to create that perfect concept in your mind? All you can do is compare your miserable attempt to create something beautiful to the expectation of actually creating it. That is the life of the critic.

It has made yet another thread about him. Why is it obsessed with this man so much? Why has it made several threads about this old man? What is it about this man that produces so much feminine passive-agressive anger?

>>10855945
this is correct

>>10855991
Sexual arousal most likely

>>10855991
Good post

>>10855881
Damn i'd actually fuck that daughter of his

>>10855933
>everyone i don't like is alt-right
Scruton has been doing this since the 80's you tard

>>10855953
Isn't Scruton pretty continental himself? He's inspired by Hegel, who isn't really liked by continentals.

>>10856054
isn't really liked by analytics* i meant

>>10856054
He definately is, but don't mind the brainlet

>>10855725
>Why does this guy criticize conceptual art for being ugly so much, when he himself is ugly as sin?
the same reason why I know what the fuck a maxilla is

>>10855884
Thanks, had a good laugh

Scruton caused some serious fucking butthurt back in the 80's when he btfo all those leftist thinkers. Well joke's on them, because the USSR is dead now.

Too bad he sold out to the tobacco industry.

>>10856100

>there is beauty in all things

He doesn't understand aesthetics.

>>10856179
why do you think that?

>>10856054
Whiteman was analytic you retard.

>>10856179
Who does?

>>10856158
but certainly not in your ms paint drawings

>>10856181
he thinks
>le ugly
Is negative.
He wants to see pretty ladies with big boobies and dogs

>>10856187
>mine

>>10855884
Guess the christians on this board aren't graced by God then because all I keep seeing is neoclassical trash

>>10856103
>the USSR
>supporting conceptual art

LOL

go back to /pol/ ideologue

>>10856189
And why do you think ugliness isn't negative?

>>10856194
Because I'm not an aesthetically illiterate retard.

>>10856191
>all i see

>>10856199
So you think that something ugly or malformed like pic related isn't a bad thing?

>>10856207
le edgy ecksdee

>>10856208
There's nothing edgy about it. You said that ugliness isn't a negative. I gave you something ugly and now ask you whether you think his malformation isn't a negative.

>>10856207
OOOOOOoooooh man, what level of Bloodborne is that from

>>10856212
>a person is just like art!
Oh look, you actually just don't understand art on a metaaesthetic level. kys

>>10856207
Why'd you have to go and let it live.

>>10856203
yep

>>10856218
He has a point, if it horrifies us to see humans like that why do we allow our world to be grotesque

>>10856218
So ugliness is a negative when we're dealing with people, but suddenly it's not an issue when we're dealing with art? Please explain, anon.

>>10856226
>horror is bad
Fuck off back to plebbit, you illiterate retard.

>>10856221
The Romans thought it was a moral obligation to kill a baby like that, but we think it's a moral obligation to let it live.

>>10856231

>>10856236
MUH WHITE CIVVYLIZASHUN ROW-MANS KILL LE NIGGER

>>10856231
Do you also purposefully eat shit to prove that something tasting bad isn't a negative thing? Taste is a part of aesthetics too, after all.

>>10856239
Look guys, a redditor.

>>10856239
>overreacting this hard after someone states a historic fact

>>10856266
MUH WHITE NIGGER KILLING FAX

>>10856228
Imagine actually writing this. Imagine writing this and thinking that it's clever.

>>10856274
You could've just answered the question here>>10856189 and none of this would've happened, redditor.

>>10856274
Imagine being this many posts deep and not having an argument

>>10856245
idiot

>>10855725
legitimate question OP.


ugly people wants beautiful art. they want to live in a delusion, i guess.

>tfw you're such an ugly pig that you think beauty itself is oppressive

>>10856189
Is that what he thinks? But ugliness IS antithetical to art, it just so happens that we don't all find the same things ugly. When art represents something "ugly" it is being elevated outside of the realm of the ugly and into the realm of the beautiful, by the artist at the very least, and for anyone who enjoys the work.

>>10856322
everyone named Dworkin is cancer

>>10856408
ye

>>10856207
No. Everything is equally valid.

>>10856322
Aesthetics are subjective. I think Andrea is kind of cute.

>>10856189
>He wants to see pretty ladies with big boobies and dogs

Sounds perfectly reasonable

>>10856228
Not that anon, but ugliness can be useful in creating contrast. Think about fairy tales — the ugly step-sister/mother trope is effective precisely because of the hag's ugliness. It serves as a foil to the beautiful and righteous heroine, and works as visual shorthand for evil. It's the same principle which photographers use when they contrast light with shadow. Saying "ugliness is (always, or even usually) bad" is like saying "darkness is (always or usually) bad" — it rules out many masterpieces of art that work because of contrast.

>tl;dr — careful use of ugly elements is good for underscoring beauty, so ugliness is at least sometimes good for a work of art.

>>10856810
I can see that, but why then would art need to be ugly in itself? If you have a beautiful piece of architecture, then wouldn't the contrast with its inferior surroundings be enough to establish the value of beauty?

What i understand is that Scruton detests how art is itself now becoming ugly, when in the past it was one of the few expressions of beauty in an ugly world.

>>10855725
he's a literal brainlet
only cancervatards take him seriously
why right-wing people can't just die tbqh

He's ugly in an aesthetic manner.

>>10856830
Some art —especially the conceptual gallery-art Scruton rails against — is created to test how effectively the artist can do something, rather than be taken as "complete" (the way a film, novel, etc. would). Sketches & color studies are often done only to see if we can get "the right kind of square" or "the right shade of brown;" after these preliminaries are finished, an artist can incorporate his findings into a more "complete" piece (in the case of sketches and color studies, this would be a full-scale painting). Likewise, an "ugliness study" might be an artist's attempt to develop a particular intensity or style of ugliness. Once that study has been done, the artist can incorporate its findings into their "complete" works.

A recent development for academic artists has been a trend towards emphasizing these studies over producing the so-called "complete" pieces like paintings. There are tons of systemic reasons for this — galleries pushing for innovation and novelty, art scholars focusing largely on aesthetic theory and influence, and so on — but there's also an argument to be made that the studies are actually more important than the "complete" artworks, because they expand the range of expressible things.

Think of it like the difference between science and engineering — engineers make things for the layperson to use; scientists discover things that engineers may or may not use. Academic artists are starting to operate more like scientists. There's a debate to be had, but Scruton won't engage honestly with it.

>>10856953
>Some art —especially the conceptual gallery-art Scruton rails against — is created to test how effectively the artist can do something, rather than be taken as "complete" (the way a film, novel, etc. would). Sketches & color studies are often done only to see if we can get "the right kind of square" or "the right shade of brown;" after these preliminaries are finished, an artist can incorporate his findings into a more "complete" piece (in the case of sketches and color studies, this would be a full-scale painting). Likewise, an "ugliness study" might be an artist's attempt to develop a particular intensity or style of ugliness. Once that study has been done, the artist can incorporate its findings into their "complete" works.

What the fuck are you on about, are you just literally making this shit up as you go along?

>>10856960
Nah, I took a class on art from 1980-2010 last Fall. I'm basically paraphrasing a lecture my professor gave.

>>10856976
Sounds like horseshit, you got bamboozled Anon

>There's a debate to be had, but Scruton won't engage honestly with it.

That's because he believes that the purpose of art isn't to engage in studies or to expand the range of expression, but to form an essentially religious expression. To emphasize on things like studies and theory is to completely miss the point of art, and likewise won't produce great art. It's like how Celine just started writing with no regard for the field of literary studies, but he still became one of the greatest french writers of the 20th century, simply because of his talent and skill.

>>10857013
post meant for
>>10856953

MUH BEAUTY WAAAAAAAAAAA

>>10857031
Beauty is pretty important in aesthetics senpai

>>10857044
Nope. Refer to the painting I posted.

>>10857051
Beauty means more than "makes me happy when I look at it"

>>10857051
but it's beautiful

>>10855725
"Conceptual art" as you so graciously call it falls into the category of degenerate non-art. It is borne by a cosmopolitan mindset which desires to do away with all boundaries including moral ones. It champions relativism and thus wishes to reject the boundaries between good and evil, beauty and ugliness, propriety and impropriety, etc.
And to achieve this, many artists have actively sought to invert values: to create "art" that is deliberately ugly, provocative, obscene, worthless.
What I have said here applies to the most notable works of this form of so-called art. But the truth is that the overwhelming majority of output is banal to the point of irrelevance and (thankfully) to the dustbin of history. All conceptual "art" is superficial and has outstayed its welcome the moment it is first exhibited.

>>10855893
You are the enemy of taste. Art without taste is worthless. In fact it is not art, when properly defined as an act of creation guided by an aesthetic ideal of beauty. There is no good aesthetic without taste, only fumbling smudging in the dark.
It's this kind of attitude that leads to the basest acts imaginable, and justification for even worse, still.
(NSFW)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRM_Wyj7elI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiyfDaHMhBY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EncR_T0faKM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gKkh7-wA0E

>>10856981
I was wondering whether Liam Gillick really warranted a whole week of classes. Pic related is one of the artworks the prof. referred to as "a lot like a color study." We spent several hours discussing the ways in which it added to the pool of tools artists can use.
>weather-sensitive
>to be enjoyed indirectly
>color combination was controversial at the time
Can't remember much else because I didn't take the best notes, but it was an odd discussion.

>>10857013
>>10857016
I'd argue that theory is still worthwhile. One of the chapters in Ulysses is three characters trading theories about Shakespeare, and the climax of The Trial is two characters debating the moral of a parable. Even Borges got in on theory with his "Author of the Quixote" short story. Of course, an author doesn't need to overtly include literary theory in his work for it to be rich, but inviting the reader to theorize is a great way to provoke both thought and emotion.

>>10857060
Nope. You're conflating "beauty" with the aestetich.

>>10857051
aesthetic*

>>10857062
>Art without taste is worthless.
Yeah I agree. We should really burn the oath of the horatii

>>10857067
I'm not saying that theory is useless, but i think the emphasis of theorizing has taken the 'soul' out of art. It's like how you can theorize endlessly about comedy, but at the end of the day that's not going to make something any more funny.

Could anyone give any real criticism on why Scruton is supposedly crap? Because unlike meme philosophers like Pinker or Harris, Scruton actually knows quite a lot about aesthetics and had a significant impact on the philosophy of aesthetics.

>>10857101
He's crap because he's not left wing apparently.

>>10857088
But theory about comedy *does* make things funnier. A close friend of mine took a stand-up class, and he let me borrow the textbook afterwards. There were some great tips.
>make the punchline as short as possible
>omit any details that aren't relevant to the punchline and/or theme of the anecdote
>use body language, gestures, and intonation to underscore the mood you're trying to set
>all the rules of drama apply to comedy
Made me better at telling jokes to be desu with you.

>>10857109
Yeah i get that's why he's controversial, but i'm talking about his work on aesthetics especially.

>>10857117
But did you find other peoples jokes funnier after reading the book?

>>10857117
>But theory about comedy *does* make things funnier.

It really doesn't

>>10857117
I'm not talking about tips on how to become a comedian/artist. That's just training/schooling. What i'm talking about is the obsession to overanalyze and deconstruct everything. Like dissecting a joke to find out why it is funny; in what context can it be placed to make it funny? Why do people react to this joke in such and such manner? You can do all that, but it'd be completely missing the point of comedy.

>>10856207
Why'd you save the picture if it's bad

>>10857149
I like to make other people miserable

>>10857133
Its even worse than that. Its like if people stopped telling jokes because people find them funny but because they fed into the theory of people writing books on comedy

>>10857013
How tf does he qualify the 'purpose' of art.. For Aristotle (and everyone from the Renaissance forward who read him) it's mimesis for the sake of delighting in mimesis, u don't need beauty for that

>>10857062
You can tell when someone hasn't read any historical argument debating ideas of taste etc in art

>>10857088
That's nonsense, the history of art from the Renaissance (that is, art history itself) has found its primary value in its theory above anything else including materials. Belting argues in fact the period of theory art is over and we are back to one of embodiment (like Medieval)

>>10857197

Then conceptual art is likely to die out

>>10855873
Most of you really are losers, huh. What am I doing here...

>>10857123
People who know exactly how a thing will go through, who have studied their craft, will eventually get bored with just about anything that involves their craft. Their only way of coping with that is to create their own content from the craft that they have mastered to manifest themselves and gain meaningful value in and around the circles of their own craft.

>Waahh "modern" art
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

>>10857183
Give us some arguments against what that poster said then.

>>10855725

nice postmodern interpretation of the matter lmfao

>>10856391
No it isn't. Go back to plebbit.
Read a fucking text on aesthetics. Holy shit, you regressive fucking teenagers.

>>10857695
Don't be so hasty to bash others, dude. I've read numerous, and what I said is derived almost directly from Nietzsche. If you disagree then actually pose an argument.

>>10857729
You don't understand Nietzsche, then. Bash yrself retard.

>>10857736
>You don't understand Nietzsche, then.
Lmao, you're serious?

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52915/52915-h/52915-h.htm

821, emphasis is mine:

>Pessimism in art?—The artist gradually learns to like for their own sake, those means which bring about the condition of aesthetic elation; extreme delicacy and glory of colour, definite delineation, quality of tone; distinctness where in normal conditions distinctness is absent. All distinct things, all nuances, in so far as they recall extreme degrees of power which give rise to intoxication, kindle this feeling of intoxication by association;—the effect of works of art is the excitation of the state which creates art, of aesthetic intoxication. The essential feature in art is ITS POWER OF PERFECTING EXISTENCE, its production of perfection and plenitude; art is essentially THE AFFIRMATION, THE BLESSING, AND THE DEIFICATION OF EXISTENCE... What does a pessimistic art signify? Is it not a contradictio?—YES.—Schopenhauer is IN ERROR when he makes certain works of art SERVE THE PURPOSE OF PESSIMISM. Tragedy DOES NOT teach "resignation." ... To represent terrible and questionable things is, in itself, THE SIGN OF AN INSTINCT OF POWER AND MAGNIFICENCE IN THE ARTIST; HE DOESN'T FEAR THEM... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PESSIMISTIC ART... Art affirms. Job affirms. But Zola? and the Goncourts?—the things they show us are ugly, their reason, however, for showing them to us is THEIR LOVE OF UGLINESS... I don't care what you say! You simply deceive yourselves if you think otherwise.—What a relief Dostoievsky is!

What don't I understand about him?

>>10857736
>>10857774
>Art and nothing else! Art is the great means of making life possible, the great seducer to life, the great stimulus of life. Art is the only superior counter-agent to all will to the denial of life; it is par excellence the anti-Christian, the anti-Buddhistic, the anti-Nihilistic force. Art is the alleviation of the seeker after knowledge,—of him who recognizes the terrible and questionable character of existence, and who will recognize it,—of the tragic seeker after knowledge. Art is the alleviation of the man of action,—of him who not only sees the terrible and questionable character of existence, but also lives it, will live it,—of the tragic and warlike man, the hero. Art is the alleviation of the sufferer,—as the way to states in which pain is willed, is transfigured, is deified, where suffering is a form of great ecstasy.

I don't understand Nietzsche... fuck anyone attempting to divorce art from its defining faculties, the beautiful, the emotions, the objects of life in their full detail. You can go suck a conceptual dick for all I care.

>>10856207
I don't know if I'm just crazy, but I see him as a cute and normal kid with just a bit of a messed up single eye and mouth. I'm not disgusted or miserable looking at that picture, when pictures like that before would have definitely made me feel that way.

>>10856191
top kek

>>10856228
Sometimes deliberate grotesqueness and ugliness creates a form of emotion which is itself aesthetic. Scruton is immature because he only wants the light without the dark. There's a lot you can do trying to create art that's as beautiful as possible, but this leaves out a whole other world and whole other range of effects -- those which can be created by traditionally "ugly" things. It's like entirely disliking dissonance in music, when dissonance can be great if used well and give much more flavor to the music.

>>10857963
I don't know anything about Scruton, but you couldn't tell artists what you're saying, because it just doesn't work like that. Even the "ugly" bits are pursued enthusiastically by artists... when they represent ugliness in their work it means they find an intoxicating pleasure and higher value in it, beauty in other words.

>>10855881
leftists btfo

>Scrotum

>>10855881
what's up with those pants

>>10855725
ad hominem is for the dim.

>>10858129
Only ugly losers believe this

>Finally, a Scruton thread

His work on aesthetics is top notch. His book "how to be a conservative" is a manual for basic bitch classical liberalism. He's probably to the left of Peterson desu.

>>10855725
>he himself is ugly as sin
But he's not at all ugly.
When you're that age, you will be ugly, as you are now, but old too.
Get any ten men that age and he will be towards the handsome end of the scale. Even people in their 80s, ravaged by weather and years, you can still see who were the good lookin ones. Bone structure is the basis, so unless serious ill health wrecks em, or too much drugs n alcohol, good looks stay forever, relative to other people your age.

>>10855966
>You can't criticize something unless you can do it yourself
This is the ultimate brainlet view. It's a pathetic attempt to isolate things from criticism because you know they're shit.

>>10857774
>>10857817
Ugliness in the modern aesthetic sense is not pessimistic you fucking retards.
Ugliness is an object of experience you fucking retards.

neoclassical beautycucks are pathetic

>>10858583
>the things they show us are ugly, their reason, however, for showing them to us is THEIR LOVE OF UGLINESS...
Ugliness is not being equated with pessimism here.

>>10855945
>Having a wife is not an achievement
Only in a relative sense. Think of how ridiculously unattainable it is for your average /r9k/er

>>10858621
I agree with you except I think architecture and public spaces ought to be beautiful. Disarming or disturbing sometimes, yes, like a Gothic church, or a Holocaust museum, but not demoralising shit that makes existence and social life nauseating.

>>10855725
he has to lash out against the world to relieve his anger from having a scrotum-sounding name

> merde d'artista, a literal can of shit, is not artistic brilliance. Something has gone wrong. We must re-engage with the traditions and history of our people to cultivate a sense of beauty and wonderment
> SHILL HACK CONSERVATIVE SCUM TOBACCO SELL OUT JUST A HACK PETERSON ALT RIGHT CLONE, NOT A REAL PHILOSOPHER, DONT ANYHING BECUZ YOU CANNOT KNOW NUFFIN

when did /lit/ become this garbage?

>>10859053
Merda d'artista's whole point is to make of modern art lol

>>10859061
make fun*

>>10859061
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

>>10859079
kek

>>10858653
So, confirmed that you don't understand Nietzsche. Great.
>>10859053
kys
>muh tradishun
You're a Mexishit, not a med. You have a child's aesthetics.

>>10857101
>had a significant impact on the philosophy of aesthetics.
Citation very much needed.

>>10857101
He knows jack shit.

>>10859121
>you don't understand Nietzsche
Not an argument.

>>10855727
>what is surgery and cosmetics

>>10856031
No you wouldn't, because she wouldn't even look at you let alone consider fucking you. Same as any other woman, anon. I don't need to say this.

>>10858621
yes they are
and I say that as someone who doesn't even like most of modern art

>>10859053
Manzoni's monochromes are great (pic related). He was one of the leading figures of post-war Italian art alongside people like Fontana and Burri, in case you think he's nothing but le edgy shit meme artist. the problem with Scruton is that he demands an impossible return to historically-contingent aesthetic modes (Romanticism and Neoclassicism), which is to ignore the developments of the past century altogther

>>10859189
bad art desu
t. not someone who thinks bouguereau is the zenith of western art

>>10856191
You nailed it

>>10859189
Sorry wog, but if you aren't making art that a Roman senator would approve of, then you're just destroying white civilization and we're gonna gas you and shit

>You don't understand Nietzsche
>No you don't understand Nietzsche
>No you don't understand Nietzsche
>No you don't understand Nietzsche

Good thread

>>10858215
>His book "how to be a conservative" is a manual for basic bitch classical liberalism.

So it's not even about conservatism?

>>10859644
That's basically all discussions about Nietzsche

>>10859211
phew i almost missed the "not" there

>>10859211
Bouguereau is pretty good, i jacked off to some of his paintings back when i didn't have porn.

>>10859667
hello fellow footfag

I think Jackass is actually high art

>>10855725
Only thing ironic is you loving ugly shit and hating him for being ugly.

>>10857418
You lack any self-awareness due to being a tremendous faggot.

>>10857629
Art is whatever I say it is, not whatever he says it is. Everything else is degenerate non-art.

>>10857345
It already did like 30-40 years ago.

>>10859053
>It's poop therefor bad

Ok

>>10857593
haha are you for real? do /pol/tards really have such a low IQ as to even listen to a sensationalist homosexual if they agree with their ideology?

srsly if you posted those videos unironically you probably have mental health issues

>>10859712
thanks for your stupid and useless contribution

>>10859878
>implying it's wrong

>>10859892
thanks for your stupid and useless contribution

>>10859906
>implying it's wrong

>>10859939
>>10859892
>implying he's right

>>10859961
sometimes I feel like those reaction images are more like autoportraits than anything else

especially when the person who posts these is completely oblivious to their own lack of intelligence

>>10859151
cool opinion bro

>>10860030
and here is a person who completely lacks the most basic sense of humour.

>>10860163
true
my sense of humor is anything but basic

>>10860173
Are actually retarded on purpose or what ?
Understanding basic humour does not mean that yours is basic, it means that you have actually the intellectual ability of understanding 'lower' jokes.

>>10860184
stop, take a breath, stop making so many mistakes in a your posts, sit down, be humble

You asserted that I don't understand basic jokes, but I countered that yes, I do not have just a basic sense of humor, my sense of humor is quite advanced
you have proven this point with your complete lack of understanding of my post, and completely missed the humor within
so to reiterate, I don't find your basic humor funny but I find it unintelligent, and I think you retarded

>>10859644
It was really just one retard saying that repeatedly with no further elaboration.

>>10860203
>stop making so many mistakes in a your posts
>a your posts
>a your

It got to admit that this is a magnificent display of your English skills.

>>10855725
>The ugly can't judge beauty.
You've never lived, have you?

>>10860884
living is for plebs

>>10859189

>historically-contingent
>''developm*nts

>>10861301
not an argument

>>10858110
>>10855881

>>10858155
I'm gorgeous, motherfucker.

>>10857993
basically we’re saying the same thing, I think you misread my post.

>>10855881
his son looks like a gormless faggot
>ugly, too broad tie inexplicably tucked into pants off-center
>no belt
>thumbs in pockets because beta
>hands outside pockets because beta self-consciousness beta impulse to put hands IN pockets
>dumb smile
>looks well under 200 lbs

>>10860370
Ignore the Schiller Shill, the man genuinely thinks he, Nietzsche and Schiller are the only people to get western art.

>>10857013
a great author not being involved in literary theory in no way supports the notion that art's purpose is religious expression lmao.

>>10858215
>defend-the-west7.png
lmao

>>10863032
>well under 200 lbs
no man who isn’t an athlete or a bodybuilder should ever be over 200 lbs. he has alright facial aesthetics as well and his daughter (sister) is adorable as well

>>10863032
>under 200 lbs

As most healthy men are. Somehow obesity has become an ideal in America.

>>10863130
>alright facial aesthetics
eyes too far apart, unmasculine and bovine. unthreatening, herbivorous visage. probably more easily raped than his sister.

>>10863143
>you can only be 200 lbs if you're obese
if you're weak

>>10858583
>Ugliness is an object of experience
But it isn't experienced as ugliness when experienced in art.

>>10863166
>rape
oh now the 200 lbs thing makes sense, how long was your bid?

>>10863130
>identifying as profession
Found the cappycuck
>>10863225
Yes it is, you autist

>>10863032
>his son looks like a gormless faggot
Because he himself is a gormless faggot

>>10863345
>Yes it is, you autist
Not him, but it literally isn't. Art necessarily deforms the original object and puts it in a different context. When you see a 2D painting of a corpse you don't think "oh my god that's terrible, poor man" or whatever you'd think if you saw a corpse irl. You'd treat it as an aesthetic object. It may arouse various different emotions in you, depending on the artistic execution, and often will make you reflect upon things in general. Would you say that a mother holding her dead son is a beautiful sight? It isn't, it is very disturbing, when you think about it, but nonetheless Michelangelo's Pieta is beautiful.

>>10857062
based as fuck

>>10859778
He didn't say it's whatever he says it is. In fact he wasn't in the business of defining it at all.

His claims about conceptual art were:
>It champions relativism
>Artists deliberately make things they consider an inversion of values
>most conceptual art is immediately forgotten

Would you say any of these are misrepresentations or lies?

>>10855725
Scruton always reminds me of Bob Pollard. They don't even look that similar. Anyways. PARALLEL LINES ON A SLOW DECLINE

>>10863515
Somebody doesn't understand aesthetics.

>>10863774
Somebody doesn't understand how his own mind works and consequently none of the concepts being discussed here.

>>10863032
Imagine being this insecure about yourself lmao

>>10856322
but it is though, studies show ugly people get treated inferior and have worse life outcomes, through no choice of their own

>>10855966
Scruton's music is pretty good, although not very well known.

He's also an organist and a novelist.

In general, I would say he's a decent artist, much better than modern architects and painters.

This is one of the worst /lit/ threads in a while, and this is saying a lot. Just pay attention to the number of words per post and you will see what I am talking about. What a waste. This board is getting worse and worse with time. It's becoming ridiculous. It is apparent that no more than half of the posters here have even read Scruton's books such as The Aesthetics of Architecture, The Aesthetics of Music, or Understanding Music: The Philosophy of Intepretation.

If the mods were any good they would delete it.

>>10864015
Agreed, this thread is a catastrophe.

>>10864015
>Reading Scruton

>>10864022
just like scruton

>>10863956
>mind
No such thing exists. Thanks for confirming your stupidity.

>>10859161
>what is looking like an uncanny silicone doll for a stupid amount of money?

>>10863032
>no belt

You're supposed to wear suits without a belt, suit fashion since the 80s has been stupid.

>>10855727
why even live

>>10864015
Im genuinely interested in Scruton, but how is he regarded in the field of aesthetics?

>>10857062

This is not what the phrase "taste is enemy of art" is about.

It means that art should be universal and timeless and not subjected to temporary aesthetic fads you massive faggot.

>>10857062
Thanks Paul

>>10856391
You take Plato and essentialist ghostbusters too seriously my friend.
>A piece of art that sometimes produces disgust my also be enjoyable by some, thus making it beautiful.
Fuck off.
The subjective and irreducible disgust a work of art produces on some(one) is also a integral part of the aesthetics of said piece. You can't isolate the piece of art from each and every subjective experience and try to imbue it with some kind transcendental magic.

>>10857062
Exhibit 1
>>>>10864757

>>10864662
Then we perhaps agree.
My point earlier was that today artists deliberately repudiate aesthetic standards, not because they see old standards of beauty as empty and obsolete but because they are driven to undermine the very notion of beauty and to dismiss it whenever possible.

As for this phrase, "taste is the enemy of art", it's clear to me and demonstrated every day in the world that it, or others like it, are used as license to do anything and everything in the name of art.

>>10864819
do you like picasso

>>10864662
>It means that art should be universal and timeless
put a cow in front of your art and it would only laugh at your concept of universality, if it could

>>10864819
Duchamp would laugh at most of the modern artists who are just following the bourgeoise late capitalist aesthetics unironically and think they are avantgarde because of that.

>>10858621
They are to art what Jordan Peterson cultists are to philosophy.

>>10864833
No

>>10864232
Well, yours certainly doesn't exist, at any rate.

>>10859189
>which is to ignore the developments of the past century altogther
This would be good desu. We can say the last century was a failed spin off and pick up from where the previous left off.
Your pic is just points plotted on a graph.

>>10865210
then your opinion is worthless, sorry

>>10865656
fuck off, platonist

Art is created as soon as a person judges it as such. Every other position is untenable.

>>10864757
>The subjective and irreducible disgust a work of art produces on some(one) is also a integral part of the aesthetics of said piece.
But it is not pure disgust, i.e. it is not actually disgust. Because it is presented to us as a creative work, a work that was deliberately made, the element of disgust is partially neutered. We recognize in it an element of reverence from the artist's perspective, otherwise they would not have deliberately made it (creation can't be conceived of in any other manner either; it is always deliberate).

>But let me explain here the one thing Nietzsche never explained. He said that art is affirmation. He said it again and again. But he never got around to explaining exactly why. Why, for example, could art not be negation? Or indifference? Or complete and utter randomness and arbitrariness? Here then is the answer: Art is creation. But to create (— more precisely, to transform something into something else, for the concept "creation" is strictly speaking meaningless, since nothing can be created out of nothing; what actually always occurs is transformation of one or more things into something else, for example of paint and canvas into a painting —) one needs first to select — creation presupposes selection; indifference and arbitrariness are therefore out of the question in the artistic act, for one never selects arbitrarily — "arbitrary selection" is a contradictio in adjecto; that the selection process might be carried on to a great extent unconsciously (as it often is in great art) is no objection to this proposition. Either way, whether selection occurs consciously or unconsciously, criteria and value judgements are, as I have already explained, continuously at play, and in the last resort even the highest consciousness contains in it — is based upon — a certain degree of unconsciousness. Therefore, since art entails selection, and since selection is a form of affirmation — art is affirmation and cannot be conceived of otherwise (— let alone as negation, which finds expression in destruction; as the exact opposite, that is to say, of the necessarily creative artistic act).

http://culture.vg/features/art-theory/on-the-genealogy-of-art-games.html

>>10866006
Isn't that the guy who wrote Orgy of the Will?

>>10866035
Yeah.

>>10855881
Check out his son's camel toe.

>>10866006
Your quote is just logical gymnastics to argument that art is a positive action.
Sure, i agree, nothing in what i said suggests the opposite. There could even be a positive analysis of destruction, i.e, iconoclasm, the destruction of icons in order to preserve what they hide, or to prove an absence.

Performance, creation, consumption, reception of art are all positive actions and can be analysed from a positive standpoint. Taste is created through many and complex relations, although sometimes pretty stable, most of the times contingent.
>Because it is presented to us as a creative work, a work that was deliberately made, the element of disgust is partially neutered. We recognize in it an element of reverence from the artist's perspective
You're assuming an educated observer that values creation in itself, because it "recognizes in it an element of reverence from the artist's perspective". Disgust must be explained in the same terms pleasure or reverence is explained, they're both positive notions, as none of them is the absence of the other one, as any of them needs the other to be understood. Also both are created and modified trough, again, many and complex relations.
Why then should disgust be a negative aesthetic experience? Isn't it possible to reject an act of creation and to revere another one?

>>10867390
>You're assuming an educated observer that values creation in itself
An observer that does not acknowledge an artist is not experiencing art. The artwork is no longer a creation and becomes just another object.

>Why then should disgust be a negative aesthetic experience?
True disgust is not a "negative" aesthetic experience — it isn't an aesthetic experience at all. There is a difference between taking pleasure in disgusting things present in a work and being disgusted in a work. The latter has nothing to do with aesthetics. Anyone trying to say otherwise is trying to convince people that beauty and ugliness are synonymous when they clearly aren't.