/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14038179]

What can I read if I want to learn to effectively argue that some art is inferior or that people have bad taste in literature, music, cinema etc? For example I want to counter people like fantano who say that no art is in inferior and rap music is just as good classical.

[Anonymous No.14038208]

>>14038179
Taste is something that cannot be bought. It is the birthright of the spiritual aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.14038209]

>>14038179
Don't read Adorn, he's a whiny bitch and you'll embarrass yourself.

[Anonymous No.14038245]

>>14038179
>recommend me something to reaffirm my beliefs

[Anonymous No.14038263]

>>14038245
Are you retarded? Are you only supposed to read things that don't?

[Anonymous No.14038269]

Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? The question entails whether taste is subjective in nature, in accordance to our own sentiments. The only logical answer to this would be, yes.
However, this disposition becomes problematic at closer examination of how we commonly judge works. That is, that we all have a general consensus that every individual is different, and therefore has a different sentiment from one another. However, a contradiction, or rather, a confliction arises within this belief. That while we acknowledge that a variety of individuals have a variety of tastes and sentiments to a work, we are also inclined to believe that there are some works that are better than others. For example, any individual with common sense would agree that Shakespeare is a better writer than John Green, despite this sentiment still being subjective in nature. And to that, philosopher David Hume contends that there is a standard of taste within the confines of our judgement of taste. But, in his Of the Standard of Taste, he fails to prove that there is such “a rule, by which the various sentiments of men may be reconciled”.
First, to understand why Hume fails to prove that there is a standard of taste, we must first examine and understand his position. Hume acknowledges that taste, in all its generalities, is subjective; however, he adds that, although individuals may disagree with each other in taste “the difference among men is there oftener found to lie in generals than in particulars; and to be less in reality than in appearance,” and that “an explanation of terms commonly ends the controversy,” and by doing so, the individuals discover that there tastes were ultimately the same.

Hume tries using his model of empiricism to arrive at a standard of taste, to say that, by learning from sense-experience we can come to a standard of something that is subjective in nature. In that empiricism is the gaining of knowledge through sense-experience, and that, our own taste and sentiment, for something, is created through our experience with that something. To apply this idea to the standard of taste, implies that, ultimately, there is a universally common taste to a particular. Though, this isn’t the case in reality. While, it is true that there are universally common sensations for things that elicit the sensation, but when it comes to the beauty or deformity of an artwork, individuals can experience different sensations from it.

[Anonymous No.14038305]

He has dozens of reviews where he says the music is bad though

[Anonymous No.14038342]

>>14038269
1/2
Taste is not in fact subjective, because taste arises from aesthetics and aesthetics arises from nature and nature is governed by game theory.
Consider the principle of entropy, there is an entropic factor to aesthetics. If I were to imagine a human face, there are statistically more ways for that face to be disfigured than their are for that face to be arranged aesthetically, this is because aesthetics are a form of virtue and virtue is in fact a byproduct of the principle of entropy and game theory. Being obese can never be a virtue or a form of beauty because obesity is easier to attain than a healthy physique, poverty is easier to attain than wealth, etc. Nietzsche idea of slave morality vs master morality was ultimately misguided by his inability to understand that it is the entropic principle that determines these qualities.
The issue then becomes more complex when you consider secondary signalling, secondary signals are marks that are used to imply fitness. Consider a tattoo, a tattoo is, by itself, hideous, it is a blemish. However it became culturally valued because it is a secondary characteristic, certain types of people were associated with tattoos, and THOSE people had other primary attractive traits. But then ultimately secondary characteristics get co-opted by lower fitness members who use them to try and 'deceive' the opposite sex into thinking they are attractive. This basic biological game is the basis for all fashion cycles, the reason things go from fashionable to trashy is because lower status individuals mimic high status individuals and it becomes trashy. Likewise the tertiary trait of aesthetics is counter-signalling, this is when you act in opposition to your status to prove how high status you are, e.g. rich people dressing like poor people and acting trashy as a way to show how high status they are.
Once you understand the basic game theory you can transpose it onto any art form.

[Anonymous No.14038376]

>>14038179
Let me explain this to you anon. Taste is RELATIVE to the individual. There is nothing objective about taste. For example, when I listen to some of my favorite hip-hop artists I feel an emotional response that I don’t feel with any other kind of music. Classical music doesn’t do it for me. Now, there are probably individuals such as yourself that are the opposite of me. You feel the classical music and it fills you with joy, but hip-hop sounds like trash.

The only thing you can argue is that certain artists/music appeal largely to certain demographics. Like Taylor Swift appeals to teenage girls.

[Anonymous No.14038389]

>>14038342
2/2
Classical music is a primary aesthetic case, it is beautiful because of its intricate, complex, structure that is multi-instrumental and multi-tonal. Conversely let us say, rap music, while it may employ technical skill, it cannot be seen as anywhere near as complex as classical music. In fact I am positive a meta-analysis of the 5 most successful classical composers would yield SEVERAL standard deviations higher IQ than the five most successful rappers of the past 3 decades. Some claim that the lyricism exhibited by Wu-Tang clang is a testament to their talent, but it simply cannot compare to the body of work of someone like Bach. So then there would only be two reasons for someone to claim that rap is an art form on par with classical music, firstly it is due to secondary signalling, The individual associates the rap music with qualities they desire, usually a low class person witnessing the rise of a fellow low class person into wealth. Or a high class person counter signalling, by suggesting something so outlandish they believe they affirm just how subtle their taste is, they may not even be cognisant of such a process. This applies to virtually any and all art forms. The innate aesthetics that causes all children to prefer butterflies to tapeworms resonates throughout all our interpretations of art. It is only when images begin to mediate our intersocial relationships that we abandon our natural aesthetics gifted to us by evolution. To better understand this one must only study Guy Debord and basic game theory.
There is also the question of cultural capital, our taste reflects our standing in society, typically art forms with a high barrier to entry (e.g. Caravaggio) will signal more 'capital' than low art forms (Comic books), this originally drove the value of the art market. However it became clear that like any commodity, cultural capital can be 'pumped and dumped' by social climbers with money.

[Anonymous No.14038401]

>>14038179
The Essential Ananda K. Coomaraswamy.
Or if you just want a taste:
http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=The_Christian_and_Oriental_or_True_Philosophy_of_Art.pdf

[Anonymous No.14038407]

>>14038263
No, you read books on a topic if you find that topic to be interesting, not on the basis of it agreeing with your personal beliefs.

[Anonymous No.14038410]

>>14038179
Bitchthony "My wife is black I can't say Nigger tho but only because I'm morally superior in fact I actually said a few times" Fagtano.

Why do you care about this mongoloid, critics are retarded and the worst scum on earth. He's an opinionated knownothing libtard.
His opinion is not relevant to anybody and you shouldn't engage with him.

That said never post him again.
Good bye, eat shit

[Anonymous No.14038420]

>>14038407
If someone were to find their own personal beliefs interesting then they should be allowed to read about it right? Maybe?

[Anonymous No.14038421]

>>14038342
>>14038389
2.5/2
Hence while it may APPEAR that the standards for art change to reflect our social values, it is quite the opposite. Our social values reflect the standards in art that are pumped and dumped by social climbers seeking to elevate their standing by accruing cultural capital. Consider you were a rap star selling albums to people on welfare and become a multimillionaire. If you are ambitiously minded you realise that your social standing is built entirely on the lower classes who are fickle and will abandon you when the next big star comes along. Financially you are all set, but you are not socially elite. So what you do is finance friends to promote painters, fashion brands, etc. that are currently not in vogue, but which you have a vested interest in. Perhaps you coin the term 'street art' for graffiti, by marketing aggressively enough soon the intellectuals at various institutions will start talking about how street art is this really important movement and represents this or that social class. Once this is accomplished your collection of graffiti, and your persona as a rap star has appreciated in social worth. No longer are you seen as some jumpstart who got rich off uneducated poor people buying your albums, but rather you are a vox populi, a symbol of resistance, a gritty manifestation of the streets etc. Perception is ultimately malleable, this is the basis of all advertisement. Last but not least, people have a desperate innate desire to feel individual, to feel that what we like is due to some intrinsic 'us-ness' that makes us who we are. But the reality is for the vast, vast, majority of people the music, movies, literature, and artwork you find appealing was implanted in you. You are simply responding to the trends you see around you that are engineered from the bottom up by the wealthy.

[Anonymous No.14038447]

>>14038410
Based.

[Anonymous No.14038466]

>>14038420
You can do whatever you want to, but there is a difference between trying to learn in good faith and reading books only for a confirmation of your beliefs. It's obvious OP hasn't read much about the topic, since if he did he wouldn't ask for recs, yet he still has his own uneducated opinion.

[Anonymous No.14038489]

>>14038466
This might be the retarded thing I've ever read on here. Why is reading books that reaffirm your beliefs not in good faith. If someone is a socialist you would expect them to read Marx and Marxist literature correct?

[Anonymous No.14038523]

>>14038489
If you were a socialist before you read Marx, you would be the retard.

[Anonymous No.14038555]

>>14038523
People aren't allowed to have beliefs before reading books right.

[Anonymous No.14038559]

>>14038179
Doesn't it depend on what you think is the purpose of art?
For example, if you believe the purpose of art is to "enlighten your mind", of course something like Anna Karenina is superior to Harry Potter.

But what is the purpose of music?

[Anonymous No.14038570]

>actually giving credence to midwits like Fagtano by validating their cardboard arguments

He's wrong. Just move on. Is that so hard?

[Anonymous No.14038572]

>>14038555
Yes, in an ideal world people would actually be educated on topics before holding positions on them. Nice trips btw.

[Anonymous No.14038580]

>>14038570
If you can't argue against him he isn't wrong.

[Anonymous No.14038584]

>>14038572
Do you have any personal beliefs you hold that you have never read a book on?

[Anonymous No.14038595]

Art is poetry, and no matter how up their own arsehole any arty type is, they'll never enjoy bad poetry. Other forms can disguise their lack of skill more easily.

[Anonymous No.14038600]

>>14038179
Why? Nobody really cares if you think 'classical' is better than hip hop.

[Anonymous No.14038601]

>>14038600
No one cares about anything you think.

[Anonymous No.14038603]

>>14038342
>taste arises from aesthetics and aesthetics arises from nature

i don't think you realize what subjective means.

[Anonymous No.14038609]

>>14038421
So why do people buy the perception of 'street art'? It's because deep down they enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.14038614]

>>14038584
Of course, I'm not perfect, but I have read books on all my strongly held beliefs. I just hate that so many people have a confirmation bias whenever researching topics they have no idea about. An open-mind is a good thing to have.

[Anonymous No.14038615]

>>14038601
I don't really care if they don't though. You do.

[Anonymous No.14038619]

It is also important to distinguish art (poetry, written or otherwise) and values of raw aesthetic, complexity or ect.
A chocolate-box painting may be pretty, beautiful even, and it may be equally difficult to produce as a Vasily Kandinsky- but one is art, and one is artisanship.

[Anonymous No.14038624]

>>14038614
If someone has a belief that sounds reasonable to them why should they not read about it? Universal healthcare sounds reasonable to me. I think I might read a book on it to understand more. How is that in bad faith?

[Anonymous No.14038630]

>>14038179
Wow, its good that there are all these different boards on 4chan seems like /lit/ has a really underdeveloped music taste. Maaan clasical music can be nice, but obviously there can be rap that is just as nice. You know thast rap is much more about words and stuff, so ofcourse it can express something that clasical music cant.

[Anonymous No.14038637]

>>14038603
If something can be empirically quantified then it is not subjective. At least not in the common use of the term subjective, of course you could argue that the earth being flat is also an opinion but this is intellectually dishonest and stupid.

[Anonymous No.14038648]

>>14038637
Your claim that if something is quantifiable then subjective is removed is ludicruous. What isn't 'empircally quantifiable?' to you? Yes you can point out 'taste' goes back to aesthetics, which go back to nature, but what you decide on it is ultimately subjective. Nature has no 'raw' objective opinion on art, only man does

[Anonymous No.14038651]

>>14038624
Because you probably have no knowledge of healthcare. By only reading books on universal healthcare, you are rejecting every other form of healthcare without any knowledge on them. Practically, you don't have time to read entire books about different types of healthcare, but you shouldn't limit your choices based off of your preconceived notions.

[Anonymous No.14038661]

>>14038609
They enjoy the assumed prestige that it gives them. Let me explain to you in kiddie terms so you understand, imagine a person who says they absolutely love algae and cricket tacos and they absolutely hate carbohydrates. This could theoretically be true, but it is far likelier given the timing that they are saying this because they actually desire the supposed prestige from their peers that being trendy affords. But on a biologically level, once taken out of a social context, they would almost certainly prefer the carbohydrates because that is literally how are brains are wired. To argue anything different is to be deliberately obtuse. There is an objective degree of aesthetics that exists on a level independent of social constructs, it can be illustrated Witt extremes, virtually all uneducated children will prefer the sound of harmonies. This is because harmonies elicit a biological pleasure response that is present virtually from birth. Of course that child could end up going to Harvard and then spend 400 dollars on tickets to sit in a concert hall and listen to a performance artist scream for forty minutes, but if you cannot distinguish the biological basis that constitutes one type of pleasure over the other you are I am afraid, a moron.

[Anonymous No.14038662]

>>14038179
Egalitarianism is the highest value in our society. The consequence of this is that it is now a social sin to suggest that some artists might be more talented than others. "Everything is relative! There's no accounting for taste! You can't measure quality of art!" This is the ethos of the idiot living in a mediocracy. You can't argue with these people because to say that some art is superior to others isn't just a commentary on art, it is a critique of their liberal values. If someone genuinely believes that a soundcloud rapper mumbling about smoking weed and driving cars is equivalent to a symphony by Beethoven, then they are beyond saving and should simply be discarded.

[Anonymous No.14038676]

>>14038648
Nature does, did you miss the point about entropy? If I take a hacksaw to your face and start cutting willy-nilly, I will mathematically decrease your attractiveness because order and disorder are not subjective or relative concepts but are in fact empirically verifiable truths. There is a thing called order and there is disorder. Things have a tendency to disorder. Therefore order indicates fitness. This is not subjective in the basic sense that it is not a matter of opinion that having all your teeth is going to make you more attractive than having no teeth. Or do you genuinely believe it’s all random and people’s tastes are governed entirely by some internal process that is totally independent of the objectively measurable fitness of an organism?

[Anonymous No.14038691]

>>14038651
Why would you read something opposing what you believe to be the reasonable viewpoint before you even understand what your original belief is. Why would I read an anti-socialist book before I've read a single book on what socialism is?

[Anonymous No.14038704]

>>14038676
How is order and disorder defined?

[Anonymous No.14038706]

>>14038662
Fantano would argue there are qualities in rap music which are just as valid as the qualities in classical and simply being more advanced isn't a good argument for it being the better art form.

[Anonymous No.14038709]

>>14038676
Regarding teeth -- it was a tradition in Japan for women to blacken their teeth, it was seen as attractive.

[Anonymous No.14038712]

>>14038691
It doesn't matter which book you read first, as long as you read both with an open mind, OP only asked for books that agreed with him. That's bad faith.

[Anonymous No.14038715]

>>14038662
No one has argued it is equivalent.

[Anonymous No.14038732]

>>14038712
It kinda does matter because why you would read something that is arguing against what you don't actually know? How would you know if the arguments were valid if you don't know anything about the subject.

I'm OP why wouldn't I read something to understand the actual positions of what I believe to be the correct position before reading the arguments against it. You don't put the objections first in the essay before the reader knows what's the subject is.

[Anonymous No.14038733]

>>14038208
Kinda based

[Anonymous No.14038741]

>>14038208
Sorta based

[Anonymous No.14038768]

>>14038704
It’s a bit like asking whether circles define pi or pi defines what a circle is, similarly disorder has an intrinsically shared relationship with the universe, I would define disorder as the natural direction for things to go in, in the absence of work.
If you do not expend energy, your house will get dirtier, not cleaner. If you do not add heat to a hot object, it will cool, etc. Metaphysically speaking disorder would be a condition of absolute randomness, an absence of discernible patterns. Patterns themselves are any structures that can be compressed. Compression mathematically is any process whereby a sequence can be described using less “information” than the sequence consists of, e.g 111222 can be compressed to “3 1s and 3s” or t1t2
So imagine you give birth to a child and his eyes are positioned randomly on his face, his mouth is on his neck, his arm sticks out of his backside etc. This would be a random arrangement. Conversely if his face displayed high levels of symmetry he would immediately be seen as more attractive. These are objective qualities insofar as they stem from mathematically determined properties which we are evolved to experience. It is objective that honey tastes better than shit, finding me an example of a person who loves eating shit does not disprove this. Once you can establish the extreme cases it is simply a matter of transposing the spectrum onto all art. This of course causes nothing but seethe and cope amongst artists because there is an innate need for individualism, for this idea that artistic talent is not something that can be measured and quantified.

[Anonymous No.14038778]

>>14038706
>>14038706
>>14038706
Is anyone able to argue against this? If you can argue against this his entire argument fails.

[Anonymous No.14038787]

>>14038732
The dichotomy between a socialist book and an anti-socialist book isn't really useful in this context. A more apt one would be between a socialist book and a capitalist book. If you had no prior knowledge about economics, then it wouldn't really matter which one you would read. Books that don't hold the same opinion as you do aren't arguing against you, they are merely just arguing for their opinions.

It's not ideal to read about what you believe to be the right position, since it can lead you to cling to ideas even if they are wrong.

[Anonymous No.14038788]

>>14038768
What if one views 'disorder' as beautiful? Tragedy is a common theme in art. Why is disorder seen as the descriptor for something bad? Also, would you say that art is part of the divine?

[Anonymous No.14038800]

>>14038376
And hip hop appeals to subhuman garbage. Gotcha.

[Anonymous No.14038805]

>>14038787
>I want to understand socialism more so let's read some books on capitalism first!

[Anonymous No.14038868]

>>14038788
You’re viewing disorder as a literary concept, like “chaos”, I’m using it as a scientific concept. A tragic novel written can be perceived as have “chaotic elements” but it would still have grammar, syntax, structure, etc.
Consider a novel that consist of sixteen pages of cheesecake recipes, three movie reviews, an assortment of receipts, four hundred pages of obituaries, six sentences consisting of the letter N repeated over and over, and then culminates in a randomly generated list of words in Esperanto. That would be closer to the type of disorder I’m talking about. Lacking in patterns, structure etc. Similarly not everyone with a high IQ is a genius, but everyone with a low IQ is a moron. IQ is an example of pattern recognition and processing, it is yet another metric by which we can make inferences as to the objective merit of an art form. If you took fifty classical composers and fifty rap artists and measured their IQs you’d notice a divergence. Now that cannot be a coincidence. CLEARLY something about classical music necessitates a higher degree of pattern recognition and manipulation, it must have a higher form of order.
People have essentially lied to you anon, they’ve told you there is this socio-cultural world that exists free of biology in which everyone has opinions and views and gifts, but it’s really just a reflection of biology and biology is governed by absolute objective rules, it has its own game theory. Now good and bad can be subjective concepts, you can argue that being healthy is bad and cancer is good, but at that point you’re simply inverting meaning. The reality is fitness is an absolute and cancer would not make you fit, so calling cancer “good” would be dishonest since it isn’t grounded in any objective reality.

[Anonymous No.14038899]

>>14038868
So what is all of this based on? The biological imperative to survive? Chaos, Ugliness = death which is bad and Order, Beauty = life which is good? Why do we like patterns? Is beauty based on math?

[Anonymous No.14038901]

>>14038868
>If you took fifty classical composers and fifty rap artists and measured their IQs you’d notice a divergence

Why do you think that?

[Anonymous No.14038916]

>>14038868
>. CLEARLY something about classical music necessitates a higher degree of pattern recognition and manipulation

And why?

[Anonymous No.14038983]

why do people hate rap so much? is it just because a lot of it has degenerate lyrics and mostly by blacks?

[Anonymous No.14038984]

>>14038868
Honestly, I was looking forward for your replies but when you started talking about hip hop in a negative way I felt like your point became mute based on your own ignorance of the art. Young Thug's midi visualizations are equivalent to Bach compositions and I don't even like mumble rap.

[Anonymous No.14038986]

>>14038868
If pure order is the highest good, would that make a cheeseburger at McDonald's the greatest food on earth, or doowop the greatest music, or pop-up books the finest literature? What is purer than the chemically balanced taste of fats and carbohydrates engineered for maximum pleasure in the simple, elegant form of a McChicken? What is more inspiring yet familiar than the harmonies of The Penguin's "Earth Angel"? To take this further, what about listening to 45 minutes of sine waves in C major? To make music interesting at all, it needs tension and release. Like enjoying bitter and sour foods, you often build up a tolerance for tension in art because it allows you to better appreciate the release. Without being subjected to not just shit, but carefully planned and designed shit, you feel nothing looking at a blank white canvas or hearing sine waves or injecting lard into your veins. In this sense, rap music is useful for people with good taste because it provides a rude, nasty, vulgar expression of the world that is disgusting and at odds with all that is good. But it is necessary to really appreciate and be grateful for the masterpieces that came before us.

[Anonymous No.14039006]

>>14038179
https://culture.vg/features/art-theory/on-the-genealogy-of-art-games.html

have fun.

[Anonymous No.14039009]

>>14038715
People in this exact thread have argued that it is.

[Anonymous No.14039015]

>>14038420
Differing opinions are very uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.14039030]

>>14039006

[Anonymous No.14039046]

>>14038983
the addition of a lyricist already degrades the complexity of the music behind it, because the "music has to make room for the singer or whatever added vocal. This also degrades the complexity of the lyricist, because now the lyricist needs to fit themselves to the degraded beat, resulting in shittier music than pure instrumental.

Rap has all of the above negative effects, but the centerpiece isn't a singer, it's the vocal equivalent of a drum.

[Anonymous No.14039065]

>>14039046
the brain soaks up drum patterns. people like lyrics because it expresses the unconscious and because some of them can be 'deep'. its cathartic. you wrote your opinion as if it was objective and that a mass group of people agree with you, when in fact musicians disagree.

[Anonymous No.14039116]

>>14039065
>the brain soaks up drum patterns
quite possibly the most intelligent sentence ever written.
>people like lyrics because it expresses the unconscious
I can say this about anything. "people like melody because it expresses the unconcious", "people like rhythm because it expresses the unconscious", "people like eating shit because it expresses the unconscious". Do you even read your sentences?
>and because some of them can be 'deep'
again, you have no idea to express yourself so you use pseudo intellectual words like "deep". Hey retard: if people like lyrics so much, why are they listening to music and not reading a fucking book? Answer: because people are stupid. That neatly ties around to the last point:
>you wrote your opinion as if it was objective and that a mass group of people agree with you
I don't care if people agree or disagree, faggot, because most people are retards (see: yourself (gotem)). As for me "sounding objective" or whatever the fuck, it's called confidence.
>when in fact musicians disagree.
What? Like who? Rappers? Kill yourself retard lol.

[Anonymous No.14039124]

>>14038179
Roberto Longhi

[Anonymous No.14039172]

>>14038342
three posts of sheer Sam-Harris-tier idiocy, what a waste of bandwidth

>>14038661
what happens when we actually do re-engineer, rewire our brains and bypass such "natural" needs? what happens when, say, an asexual person reads erotic literature? how does this theory account for artistic history? assung that realism in art inherently brings greater pleasure (it's extremely likely that this is your position), there would be a universal tendency towards it - yet, say, Egypt stuck to the same non-realist style of art for around two thousand years, with only occasional variations, increases in "realism", which would apparently not gain a long-term foothold and stronger appreciation among the audiences, since most times the style would quietly slide back to the
more stylized representation. then, why did modernism in art happen anyway? magically people just decided to not enjoy themselves anymore? it's the kikes, isn't it?
>virtually all uneducated children will prefer the sound of harmonies
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18635
>Classical music is a primary aesthetic case, it is beautiful because of its intricate, complex, structure that is multi-instrumental and multi-tonal.
Then why is stuff like the Mondscheinsonate, Rondo alla Turca and Für Elise by far the most popular classical music while 95% of human population would be bored to death by a Brandenburg concerto?
I mean, fuck, you literally don't give an objective aesthetics, even you see that, you give some partial explanation based on evo psych, admit that there are exceptions (desiring difference from the norm, for example), but they're somehow outside of your "proper" aesthetics (which pretend to be descriptive, yet turn out to be unable to deal with countless problems from outside of their norms), and call all that mess "objective"

>>14038984
>Young Thug's midi visualizations are equivalent to Bach compositions
>>14039046
>addition of a lyricist already degrades the complexity of the music behind it, because the "music has to make room for the singer or whatever added vocal
wow, I think these posts just reduced my IQ by ten to fifteen points, congrats, I guess I'll leave the thread and listen to the musically degraded Bach passions and Verdi operas now

[Anonymous No.14039206]

>>14039124
What do you suggest I read from him for this topic and I am gonna have to learn italian?

[Anonymous No.14039230]

>>14039046
but why can't the presence of interesting/compelling lyricism and a rhythm not be conducive to an entertaining experience? the two seem to be able to amount to their own interesting complex form, the relation between lyricism and the beat, I'm not sure I see how it might necessarily follow any kind of 'degradation".

I assume you think other music, like opera, is also inferior to more 'pure' music?

[Anonymous No.14039245]

>>14039116
You're a child

[Anonymous No.14039261]

>>14039172
Why, yes, lyrics do lower IQ. Musical expression requires abstract thinking. Words come naturally even to the most primitive of subhumans such as the negro or mongoloid. These pitiful creatures cannot follow the abstraction of purely instrumental music and thus aren't fit to subject their opinions onto superior beings such as myself. It would be like a dog arguing that his Alpo is better than a four course meal at a 3 star restaurant.

[Anonymous No.14039302]

>>14038630
>there can be rap that is just as nice

No one could ever say such a thing without being ironic. I refuse to believe it.

[Anonymous No.14039306]

>>14039261
Wagner's operas are better than any purely instrumental music.

[Anonymous No.14039311]

>>14039302
What makes classical music better than rap music? Simply being more advanced isn't an argument. Rap has different qualities to classical music that are just valid.

[Anonymous No.14039327]

>>14039261
back off, heathen

[Anonymous No.14039367]

>>14039306
Opera is the cognitive equivalent to KFC.
>>14039327
Music is closer to God than words, as words can be corrupted by troglodytic cretins. No one can change 440Hz. It is a universal constant unlike various society's verbal depiction of Jesus' acts of martyrdom. The closer music comes to preaching the Word, the sooner we can cast away degenerate linguapagans like Handel, Wagner, Frank "Sin"atra, Paul McCartney, and 6ix9ine.

[Anonymous No.14039371]

>>14038805
I'm amazed that anon humoured you for as long as he did, you're a fucking retard mate.

[Anonymous No.14039400]

>>14038179
Ben, get the fuck out of here. We're not gonna help you just because you stopped doing the owning 4 years ago

[Anonymous No.14039408]

>>14039371
Did I really take the bait? Still seems real to me.

[Anonymous No.14039434]

>>14039302
child

[Anonymous No.14039438]

>>14038778
Anyone :(?

[Anonymous No.14039442]

>hate rap for ripping old house and downtempo tracks with no credit
how do i philosophically execute people for their crimes?

[Anonymous No.14039449]

>>14039206
>I am gonna have to learn italian?
Well, actually it would help a lot, given that Longhi was an absolute genius of prose. He revolutionized art criticism with his exceptional way of writing. When he had to flunk an artist he could brutally destroy him, when he had to praise another he could make his art look like the essence of paradise. He was praised and envied even by the most famous Italian novelists.

[Anonymous No.14039475]

>>14038179
Schopenhauer dedicated 1/4 of his masterpiece to aesthetics. Most of it is about how music is the highest art and why. He would agree that rap is inferior to classical. Because he says lyrics detract from the truth of music

[Anonymous No.14039497]

>>14039311
>actually sweetie, howling niggers are just as "valid" as bach

[Anonymous No.14039516]

>>14039497
not an argument

[Anonymous No.14039526]

>>14039311
I know I'm getting fucking trolled here and you're only getting this (You) because I fell for it in the first place.

[Anonymous No.14039541]

>>14039526
That's literally the exact argument fantano makes. No one so far has been able to argue against it.

[Anonymous No.14039549]

>>14039438
You're not getting replied to because it's a goddamn blow to the head to even entertain the idea that monkeys beating electronic drums and slinging syllables like their slobber could ever be equivalent to even one composition of the earliest, most primordial era of classical music. And if this an unironic viewpoint I want you to know I will dispose of your life with haste when the race war finally begins. Helter fucking skelter.

[Anonymous No.14039551]

>>14039549
You literally cant argue against it. I've posted this thread like 4 times and no responses so far.

[Anonymous No.14039555]

>>14039541
Why don't you go make this thread on /mu/ where more of your pathetic drones will flock to your aid.

[Anonymous No.14039565]

>>14039551
Classical music is better than rap because it was made by human beings rather than niggers.

[Anonymous No.14039572]

>>14039541
>wants into objectivism
nope sorry

[Anonymous No.14039573]

>>14039555
I already did it's up right now

[Anonymous No.14039574]

>>14039541
Doesnt he rate albums, and doesnt he rate them based on certain criteria? What prevents his judgments from being completely worthless, based on that argument

[Anonymous No.14039581]

>>14039565
What about Eminem

[Anonymous No.14039584]

This pic is extremely relevant to this delightful debate.

[Anonymous No.14039585]

>>14039581
nigger is both a race and a state of mind

[Anonymous No.14039589]

>>14038208
I'm giving this post a light cringe to a strong based

[Anonymous No.14039590]

>>14039581
Okay what about Bill Evans playing jazz piano? Just because it was started by monkeys doesn't mean it can't be refined a little by whites.

[Anonymous No.14039599]

>>14038208
Almost cringe- idk why I’m writing this. I’m just following other anons...

[Anonymous No.14039623]

>>14039574
I can't remember the video but I think the point of his argument is that the person who understands the genre and the music will be able to pick out what is good and bad about a specific album or song and that's what makes it as valid as classical. Rap has a different set of qualities in the way the music is made so you can't say classical is better because it's apples and oranges.

[Anonymous No.14039720]

>>14039623
So he says that a framework in which all music can be judged is unsound, yet genre specific criteria is rational and sound? That seems incredibly convenient. Are there objective standards on properly understanding a genre? Why is his conception of "understanding" a genre more valid than any other interpretation?

[Anonymous No.14039736]

>>14039720
You probably shouldn't judge a techno song the same way you would a classical piece so using those same methods to say one is better or worse is kinda null.

>Are there objective standards on properly understanding a genre?
I think he would say yes.
>Why is his conception of "understanding" a genre more valid than any other interpretation?
It's objective in that the using the framework to analysis a piece will come out with something that is objective not that the framework itself is whats objective.

[Anonymous No.14039776]

>>14039623
I think I can agree with this to some extent. Evaluating the quality of a $0.80 frozen Banquet pot pie in comparison to a Hungry Man makes sense. It shouldn't be critiqued the same as filet mignon or even a home-cooked steak and mashed potatoes.

[Anonymous No.14039792]

>>14039776
You are doing the equivalent of picking the worst of rap music and comparing it to the best of classical. You'd have a harder time comparing a filet to a good hot dog or some other quality junkfood I can't think of.

[Anonymous No.14039829]

>>14039792
The best rap has to offer is the gustatory equivalent of frozen White Castle sliders and gatorade whereas the worst "classical" has to offer is a cheap cut of pork with beer to wash it down.
>quality junkfood
That's the problem isn't it? It's why people are attracted to rap and pop in general. It's cheap and convenient, appealing to the most entry-level and basic senses. Just because a McDonald's hamburger or deep fried Twinkie appeals to our animal need for fat and sugar doesn't make it good for us. It does nothing to uplift or enlighten, just fill us up like a gas tank on our way to the sawmill or shoe factory.

[Anonymous No.14039863]

>>14039829
I'd rather listen to MF Doom than Tchaikovsky or Chopin. Anyways your argument is because it's basic that's its worse and because classical is advanced it's better. So with the same logic avant garde composers should be the best composers.

[Anonymous No.14039902]

>>14039863
You have the deduction skills of a fucking child

[Anonymous No.14039912]

>>14039863
I agree, avant garde are better. I'd rather listen to Frank Zappa or John Cage than Scarlatti or Mahler. Rap is like John Green and Stephen King or Rowling. Rap is like a cold can of raviolis or bag of Takis. Rap is for illiterate Zulus to perform mating rituals by.

[Anonymous No.14039919]

>>14039792
>You are doing the equivalent of picking the worst of rap music and comparing it to the best of classical.

How is it even possible to write this under the framework you've been arguing? You've argued in this thread that there is a partition in qualities between rap and classical, so even you are committed to saying that you can't actually make such comparative claims because there is no intersection between the two. You are violating your own standards here.

[Anonymous No.14039925]

>>14039776
>>14039829
>>14039912
>food analogies

[Anonymous No.14039934]

>>14039919
I was arguing with his framework. With fantanos framework he has no argument

[Anonymous No.14039935]

>>14039792
>WOSRT of rap
>BEST of classical
Oh no no no

[Anonymous No.14039941]

>>14039925
>complaining about food analogies when the underpinning of a large amount of aesthetic criticism is "taste"

[Anonymous No.14039943]

>>14039941
>you can taste music

[Anonymous No.14039951]

>>14039943
>he doesn't have synesthesia
never
going
to
make
it

[Anonymous No.14039952]

>>14039941
tastebud different to brain my friend.

[Anonymous No.14039970]

>>14039934
No, I'm saying that you are unable to even make criticisms of anyone's framework under your own logical commitments. If you had any philosophical self-awareness you'd realize that this is a counter-argument to Fantano's framework. It's very similar to relativist views that locally partition themselves off to the point that they cannot make global criticisms of any thing because they've cut themselves off from making it so. Again, if you were committed to your own views that you've been arguing, you shouldn't be able to state something like, "You are doing the equivalent of picking the worst of rap music and comparing it to the best of classical," because comparative evaluative claims don't have force behind them.

[Anonymous No.14039976]

>>14039925
>>14039943
Many forms of art of often "guttural", pun intended. Sensorial mediums can and are comparable. I pity people who can't smell the earthy metallic tones of Stravinsky or the sweaty armpits of The Doors. Just LOOK at Morrison. Can't you taste Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier? How meaty some compositions are yet light and fluffy? Rap tastes like sweaty coins, like sucking on the end of a gun. Fitting for their violent primitive ape culture.

[Anonymous No.14039980]

>>14039943
>>14039952
>being on a literature board and not understanding metaphor

Back to /mu/, brainlets.

[Anonymous No.14040003]

>>14039970
It's not about someones framework being objectively true but which framework can be argued to be the best. I can critique his framework and he critique mine.

[Anonymous No.14040006]

>>14038179
Hegel

[Anonymous No.14040034]

>>14039943
>>14039952
Periodic reminder that taking the non-literal as literal is a hallmark of autism.

[Anonymous No.14040063]

>>14040006
what is hegels position?

[Anonymous No.14040082]

>>14040003
I'm not talking about objectivity. I'm talking about your own logical and evaluative commitments that screen you off from making global comparative evaluative claims given your commitments to the local genre qualities that are partitioned off from each other. Again, you haven't justified this at all in any manner.

[Anonymous No.14040094]

>>14040082
I'm not allowed to larp?

[Anonymous No.14040121]

>>14039980
one should probably avoid pinning an argument on what the arguer assumes to be analogous

[Anonymous No.14040131]

>>14039829
Why does rap music only appeal to the most 'entry-level and basic senses', can you justify this?

[Anonymous No.14040151]

>>14040131
Because it consists solely of elements that those with entry level musical understanding and basic senses can understand. Namely a pure focus on brutally repetitive rhythms. Generally this is because it's made by monkeypeople with very crude understanding of harmonic complexity.

[Anonymous No.14040158]

>>14040151
>Namely a pure focus on brutally repetitive rhythms.
Said the guy who has never listened to rap

[Anonymous No.14040160]

>>14040131
>drum beats hearkening to the dark heart of the Congo where man is no different than ape
>rhythmic incantations using half-formed thoughts regarding vague notions of animal lust and violence
>stolen samples of well-crafted music in broken loops to excite listeners who are above a 60 IQ
I don't know, you tell me, anon.

[Anonymous No.14040168]

>>14040160
>>stolen samples of well-crafted music in broken loops to excite listeners who are above a 60 IQ
why you gotta call me out :(

[Anonymous No.14040181]

>>14038179
>For example I want to counter people like fantano who say that no art is in inferior and rap music is just as good classical.
He doesn't say this purely on the grounds of relativism. It isn't as though his commentary on rap os devoid of technical analysis.

[Anonymous No.14040187]

>>14040168
Look, anon, I can listen to "some" rap for a few minutes at a time solely because they steal good samples, typically from some funk or smooth jazz. I'd much rather listen to the original source than rap. All it does is enrage me how creatively bankrupt "rags to riches" young blood thugs get made into millionaires by no effort and lots of scheming by seedy industry scouts. I don't deny that there may, just may, be a talented individual or two who poured a lot of effort and heart into their album. Whoever they are, I doubt I will ever find them because I am NOT diving face first into a lake of shit to find a few discarded pearls.

[Anonymous No.14040190]

>>14040151
granting your presupposition that rap instruments are purely repetitive, which I'm not sure you have justified, but do you think the relation between lyricism and a simple rhythm can create something complex or provide and interesting sensory experience, or do you ignore the value of any external factors beyond the instrumental in your typical hip hop track?

[Anonymous No.14040192]

>>14040187
>I am NOT diving face first into a lake of shit to find a few discarded pearls.
how do you even listen to music in the first place?

[Anonymous No.14040201]

>>14040190
>>14040151
Leonard Cohen and Bob dylan are fucking trash they only strums 2 chords

[Anonymous No.14040232]

>>14040192
I like to read compositions before I listen to them. That's how I got into lots of jazz, classical, and prog rock. I find it exciting to read sheet music and hear it in my head then get blown away listening to a recording. Also, if you find a composer you enjoy, it's easy to just read their history and find out who they were inspired by then go backwards from there. Then you can go forwards too, finding out who they influenced. Of course I run into shit. It's just that 99% of jazz is better than 99% of rap, if I wrote that correctly, so it doesn't feel like I'm swimming in a lake of shit.

[Anonymous No.14040239]

>>14040232
99% of classical is better than 99% jazz. 99% of rock is better than 99% of rap are you seeing a pattern

[Anonymous No.14040281]

>>14039943

[Anonymous No.14040286]

>>14040239
Yes. Music is degenerating in quality. I suppose I'm part of the problem too; I won't deny it. I think the fact more people listen to music than centuries ago is why it has become this way. If music was banned for everyone except the elite, we would be a step closer to leading more virtuous live. Same with literature and paintings and cuisine. 7 billion people need to live off of gruel, stick figures, and 16 hours of hard labor a day to be the best they can be. I am priveleged to be allowed a glimpse at the eternal beauty of our betters and that's why I fight for its appreciation in this stage of civilization before it all falls apart and we enter the real dark age. Although what we the peasants will call a dark age will be a neo-renaissance of our superiors once they are unshackled by the incessant needs of the primitives.

[Anonymous No.14040368]

>>14039912
>I'd rather listen to Frank Zappa or John Cage than Scarlatti or Mahler
THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF /LIT/

[Anonymous No.14040378]

>>14040158
link some rap that instrumentally develops throughout the duration of the song, preferably has three distinct thematic sections

[Anonymous No.14040396]

>>14040378
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQm8qpexnjo

[Anonymous No.14040443]

>>14040396
Well, I guess "development" was too ambitious of me to demand.

[Anonymous No.14040449]

>>14039408
Of course you did. Judging by his repiles he wasn't really interested in what you had to say, instead he was looking for errors in your reasoning. If he really was looking for a discussion he might've asked you to elaborate on certain points instead of repeating the same questions again and again. If the other replies were by OP then the justification he gave for not enjoying rap were weak. Regardless of your linguistic prowess, you must have at least some sort of sincerity in your critique for it to have any effect on the reader, something this cocksucking faggot lacks.

[Anonymous No.14040452]

>>14038208
Have sex.

[Anonymous No.14040453]

>>14038179
the greatness of a piece of art is determined by it's ability to resonate with, address, or the human condition. since the human condition is universal, there is objectively superior art.

[Anonymous No.14040462]

>>14040453
*or to explain the human condition

[Anonymous No.14040510]

>>14040449
not an argument

[Anonymous No.14040553]

>>14040449
have sex

[Anonymous No.14040568]

>>14040553
have sex

[Anonymous No.14040584]

>>14040453
If the human condition is universal, why is it so that it was apparently only properly captured by art produced in western Europe, Russia and USA in the last cca 6 centuries + some stuff from Greece and Rome, basically all created within the "high culture" milieu/institutions?

[Anonymous No.14040590]

>>14040452
incel

[Anonymous No.14040604]

>>14040584
>why is it so that it was apparently only properly captured by art produced in western Europe

[Anonymous No.14040620]

>>14038410
>t. Anthony Fantano
It's ok bud, you don't have to hide anymore, stop fronting

[Anonymous No.14040625]

>>14040604
o la la, how very humanconditiony!

[Anonymous No.14040669]

>>14040584
while I do not agree with that anon on what makes art great, I think you are biased in your statement that only essentially the west and "some stuff" from antiquity. other cultures globally have produced fine art, stories and poetry that may resonate with and address the human condition.

[Anonymous No.14040682]

>>14040669
>that only essentially the west and "some stuff" from antiquity captured the human condition
is what I was meant to say

[Anonymous No.14041292]

>>14039475
Lol music is based around lyrics anon

[Anonymous No.14041323]

>>14038559
This

[Anonymous No.14041351]

>>14039311
The mistake is believing 'music' is some fixed category and everything that, say, uses certain sound frequencies as the form of its "art" is music. There being discontinuity between rap and 'classical' isn't a sign that one is inferior to the other. The conditions, purpose, reception, etc. all make them different even if they both fit in mp3 format

[Anonymous No.14041357]

>>14039442
>credit

Hahah do we credit the birds

[Anonymous No.14041371]

>>14040151
>learns guitar tabs
>advanced music theory

[Anonymous No.14041378]

>>14040453
>the greatness of a piece of art is determined by it's ability to resonate with, address, or the human condition
No it isn't you fucking simp

[Anonymous No.14041390]

>>14040239
incorrect

[Anonymous No.14041441]

I don't even have to read this thread to know the frightening amount of soi it contains

[Anonymous No.14041612]

>>14038899
Beauty is based on math. Just google 'Fractal-Scaling Properties as Aesthetic Primitives in Vision and Touch' for an example. 4chan wont let me post the link

>>14038986
You're once again taking the literary view of order and also distorting my point entirely. You're conflating order with simplicity and disorder with complexity when this is absolutely not the case. Order simply means containing patterns. An absolutely chaotic work of art is essentially one produced by random number generation, like a book consisting entirely of random letters. In fact complexity can only arise from order, if you consider that a novel made of random letters could go from 10 pages to 1000 pages almost nothing will change, it will not grow more complex because it is too disordered.
For maximum complexity you need something known as the edge of chaos, which is again a real scientific phenomena
Anyways again my argument is not that we can transpose some mathematical formula that we KNOW onto every work of art and presume its precise position in the spectrum of objective quality. Rather my point is if the conceptual components of aesthetics are at the core objective, that is to say aesthetics is a product of innate laws in our evolution, then it stands to reason that no matter how many layers of abstraction we create between a work of art and the primacy of our aesthetics, all art must still exist on an objective scale.
To determine this scale it is possibly helpful to look at secondary characteristics, I think the disparity in IQ between consumers of reality TV and tarkovsky films is a secondary characteristic we could use to inform an objectively true conclusion that tarkovsky films probably contain more aesthetic stimuli than reality TV.

[Anonymous No.14041632]

>>14039311
>>14039541
Here's the root of the issue, any and all qualitative statements are subject to the person qualifying them, I can say rap is better than jazz and I can say that McDonalds is better than any steak restaurant and so on, and while the fact that I enjoy these things may make my opinion 'valid' it is important to understand that my appreciation for something does not invalidate an objective qualitative difference even if that difference is impossible for anyone to entirely grasp. Because you can just move the standards for anything, I can say that gender studies is more complex than physics, you could point out the high degree of mathematics and IQ scores of physics majors and I could say that I don't believe intelligence correlates to IQ or mathematics at all, I could then say that intelligence is the extent to which a person can express empathy which gender studies majors score higher on, and so on. And after playing this game for a while all I'm actually doing is just shifting words around, because even though we're both using the word 'intelligent' and 'better' and 'beauty' we are actually referring to completely different traits. As Wittgenstein said, language is a game, and once opinions are sufficiently divergent the words tied to their meaning also diverge.
I could argue for hours with someone that classical is better than rap completely oblivious to the fact that we are both in agreement but the issue is that the word 'better' means something different in each of our minds. Thus the true barrier to overcoming differences in taste stem from obstacles in our use of language and furthermore from acquired stimulation association. Someone who grows up listening to rap will emit feel good chemicals when he listens to it and someone who grew up listening to opera will emit feel good chemicals listening to that, but enjoying something is not a measure of quality.

[Anonymous No.14041951]

>>14041612
>beauty arises from order
>but not all order
>only the good order
>the quality of order can be determined by the quality of those who appreciate it
>smart man like good book
>good book liked by smart man
Fuck off, pseud.

[Anonymous No.14042202]

>>14041632
what is the measure of quality, then?

[Anonymous No.14042224]

Hegels Aesthetics if you want to btfo braindead music listeners (rap or classical)

[Anonymous No.14042353]

>>14041371
Still significantly better than

>saying words to simplistic rhythm
>gansta ass rapper

[Anonymous No.14042361]

>>14040286
I'm the guy shitting on the rapfag earlier in the thread. Your attitude is admirable and I do feel the same way. But don't you understand how futile your effort is? Keep the best for yourself and let them have their malformed pygmy music.

[Anonymous No.14042365]

>>14041441
I've skimmed through it and I can feel my manboobs expanding.

[Anonymous No.14042367]

>>14038179
>What can I read if I want to learn to effectively argue that some art is inferior or that people have bad taste in literature, music, cinema etc?
Why do you believe in something you can't even argue for?
>>14038208
Autistic faggot

[Anonymous No.14042374]

>>14038208

Imagine actually believing this