/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8919241]

Post /lit/ pics

[Anonymous No.8919358]

[Anonymous No.8919559]

>>8919241
I like these threads, even though they are sometimes removed. My contribution:

[Anonymous No.8919563]

[Anonymous No.8919594]

>>8919241

[Anonymous No.8919644]

>>8919559
Thanks, friend.

[Anonymous No.8919660]

boop

[Anonymous No.8919665]

>>8919660

[Anonymous No.8919672]

>>8919665

[Anonymous No.8919677]

>>8919672

[Anonymous No.8919680]

>>8919677

[Anonymous No.8919684]

>>8919680

[Anonymous No.8919688]

>>8919684
alright peace and good night

[Anonymous No.8919690]

[Anonymous No.8919706]

[Anonymous No.8919769]

[Anonymous No.8919771]

[Anonymous No.8919773]

[Anonymous No.8919813]

>>8919241

[Anonymous No.8919852]

>>8919241
Does anyone have picture of the cozy room with snow falling in the big windows, with incense burning on the table?

[Anonymous No.8919891]

>>8919852
Nope, I've only got pictures of your naked mum.

[Anonymous No.8919897]

>>8919891
Don't be a bitch, post my mum anon.

[Anonymous No.8920244]

[Anonymous No.8920429]

[Anonymous No.8920512]

[Anonymous No.8920592]

>>8920244

[Anonymous No.8920820]

>>8919358
reminds me of fathers and sons

[Anonymous No.8920842]

>>8919563
kek
>>8919660
cumming
>>8919665
ingenious
>>8919672
corny
>>8919677
pedantic
>>8919680
cool

[Anonymous No.8920849]

>>8920429
arca?

[Anonymous No.8920851]

[Anonymous No.8920893]

[Anonymous No.8920972]

[Anonymous No.8920975]

[Anonymous No.8920976]

mai waifu

[Anonymous No.8920977]

[Anonymous No.8920980]

[Anonymous No.8920987]

[Anonymous No.8921048]

[Anonymous No.8921058]

[Anonymous No.8921109]

[Anonymous No.8921155]

>>8920244
The birth of a spicy new meme

[Anonymous No.8921186]

[Anonymous No.8921239]

>>8921155

this was originally a tumblr meme and its pretty old now

>4chan recycling old tumblr memes

yikes

[Anonymous No.8921270]

shit taste in images, anon(s)

[Anonymous No.8921837]

>>8920976
More!!!! Got any of her sucking dick?

[Anonymous No.8921848]

[Anonymous No.8921852]

>>8921270
also in feet desu

[Anonymous No.8921855]

[Anonymous No.8921860]

[Anonymous No.8921863]

[Anonymous No.8921888]

[Anonymous No.8921897]

[Anonymous No.8921903]

>>8921860
gay af

[Anonymous No.8921905]

[Anonymous No.8921907]

>>8921888
Beautiful.

[Anonymous No.8922110]

[Anonymous No.8922221]

>>8920849
Was about to ask the same question

[Anonymous No.8922651]

>what's going on this thread

[Anonymous No.8922657]

[Anonymous No.8922687]

>tfw this perfectly captures myself and the general population of this board who I see as similarly pathetic

[Anonymous No.8922725]

>tfw this perfectly captures myself and the general population of this board who I see as similarly pathetic

[Anonymous No.8922750]

[Anonymous No.8922757]

[Anonymous No.8923029]

For all the "marxists"

[TWPoet !!mQAvKw6nzRr No.8923293]

>>8920842
Here's one of my favorite.

[Anonymous No.8923494]

>>8921270
>shit taste in images
>posts a cropped photo of a highly regarded work of art

[Anonymous No.8923499]

>>8921860
What's this from? I like it

[Anonymous No.8923548]

>>8923499
Rockwell kent

[Anonymous No.8923565]

>>8919563

i never understood this one. is it a reference to a greek philosopher? is it to do with the pointlessness of "tfw no gf"?

[Anonymous No.8923583]

>>8919677
>>8920842

>pedantic

that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Anonymous No.8923618]

>>8923565
I take it as 1. being a reference to alice in wonderland with the slug and the logical games and 2. Useless expressions like be yourself are useless when it comes to acrually acting upon something. Saying tfw no gf is useless and looking for advice is equally as useless. 3. The joke is that although pepe offered something logically useless we came to realize through his non sensical and recursive(?) riddle that going around complaining and asking for advice won't help us, and therefore extracting meaning out of something meaningless.

[Anonymous No.8923753]

[Anonymous No.8923764]

[Anonymous No.8924030]

>>8923618

Thank you for the insight :)

[Anonymous No.8924056]

>>8919690
>tfw like Buddhist art, aesthetics and aspects of its actual philosophical tradition but don't want to look like one of those "whoah buddhisms so cool and peaceful man - way better than western religion"

its tough

[Anonymous No.8924182]

>>8923494
it wasn't worthy of appearing in full size; the italian original is better

[Anonymous No.8924279]

>>8921863
This is really good.

[Anonymous No.8924299]

Here's a list I've been compiling over the past few months of artists that I like and come across. The obvious ones aren't necessarily listed although some are. I don't have any knowledge of art so there's your forewarning. Here's a Hopper for the road

http://pastebin.com/TxCYu5xe

[Anonymous No.8924346]

>>8923753
lads

[Anonymous No.8924357]

>>8919241

1

[Anonymous No.8924361]

>>8924357

2

[Anonymous No.8924367]

>>8924361

3

[Anonymous No.8924379]

>>8924367

4

[Anonymous No.8924387]

>>8924379

5

[Anonymous No.8924398]

[Anonymous No.8924444]

>>8924398

[Anonymous No.8924478]

>>8919706
I recognize this one...
This is a rather. Sad, story.

[Anonymous No.8924480]

[Anonymous No.8924484]

>>8924480

[Anonymous No.8924492]

>>8924484

[TWPoet !!mQAvKw6nzRr No.8924498]

>>8924480
>>8924484
>>8924492

[Anonymous No.8924501]

>>8924492

>>8924498
It's from the film of the novel watership down. It is the ending death scene

[Anonymous No.8924508]

>>8924501

[Anonymous No.8924509]

>>8924508

[Anonymous No.8924512]

>>8924509

[Anonymous No.8924581]

[Anonymous No.8924767]

>>8924509
>>8924512
Are these about (((them)))?

[Anonymous No.8925063]

[Anonymous No.8925104]

>>8923565
It's a reference to Gödel Escher Bach, where recursion is the central theme of the book.
The author puts between all chapters interludes such as a dialogue between Achilles and the turtle to give a bit of charm to the concepts that are explained.

[Anonymous No.8925182]

>>8924398
kek
I didn't expect an YLYL thread

[Anonymous No.8925229]

>>8923565
>>8925104
The story with Achilles and the turtle is one of Zeno's paradoxes, in which the point is that moving towards a point requires you to first travel always a half of the distance and thus can't reach the other end.
As Aristotle puts it Physics, "In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead."
It is obviously false, but Zeno held that movement was a logical impossibility

[Anonymous No.8925258]

[Anonymous No.8925262]

>>8924379
I think this would be a better picture without the two spooky monsters in the front. The third is good, as you can't really figure it out

[Anonymous No.8927004]

[Anonymous No.8927091]

most /lit/ picture ever

[Anonymous No.8927123]

[Anonymous No.8927202]

>>8927091
>start with the greeks
>it's all literally just MUH DICK MUH DICK MUH DICK

[Anonymous No.8928201]

>>8920975
By whom is this?

[Anonymous No.8928390]

>>8920980
dis ones purdy

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!Srz2lnO/STC No.8929849]

>>8927091
Offensive!

>>8928201
Grimshaw. He's great.

[Anonymous No.8930009]

[Anonymous No.8930412]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!Srz2lnO/STC No.8930427]

Oh, beg pardon.

Something classier.

[Anonymous No.8931039]

>>8925229

Fascinating

[Anonymous No.8931210]

>>8931039
Not that much, it breaks down once you introduce a lowest resolution of space in the form of the Planck length. Greeks were into continuous models so much they could not imagine pixels.

[Anonymous No.8931220]

>>8930427
Corp?

[Anonymous No.8931595]

[Anonymous No.8932282]

>>8920512
kitsch

[Anonymous No.8933480]

>>8928201
You mean 'whom is this by?'

[Anonymous No.8933849]

[Anonymous No.8933863]

>>8931210
Or you know you could just solve the issue using integration or even just Aristotle's response

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934567]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934573]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934579]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934607]

[TWPoet !!mQAvKw6nzRr No.8934612]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934613]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934623]

[TWPoet !!mQAvKw6nzRr No.8934631]

>>8934623

[Anonymous No.8934634]

>>8925229
he could just bend over and pick it up reasonably at stage 3 but definitely at stage 4

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934644]

>>8934631
Heh
And it is all just Monopoly

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934656]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934662]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934663]

[TWPoet !!mQAvKw6nzRr No.8934669]

>>8934644

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934679]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934685]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934690]

[TWPoet !!mQAvKw6nzRr No.8934699]

>>8934690
Keep up the good work, Butterfly.

[Anonymous No.8934711]

wow this is all garbage
glad to see /lit/ like the other boards has its own version of our shitspamming tripfags

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934715]

[Anonymous No.8934723]

ITT: pictures

[Anonymous No.8934724]

>>8934711
What else do you expect in a dump?
Honestly, I'm surprised that you haven't learned by now.
Fucking newfags.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934725]

>>8934711
These threads are for visual stimuli. Ques for the writers inspiration.
Do you have any pics to contribute?

[Anonymous No.8934728]

>>8934711
>our
Go back to /pol/
better yet
>>>/s4s/

[TWPoet !!mQAvKw6nzRr No.8934732]

Here's a classic.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934735]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934744]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8934752]

Just noticed the tv

[Anonymous No.8934760]

>>8919358
What is it about this painting that I like so much?

[Anonymous No.8934976]

>>8924480
>http://pastebin.com/TxCYu5xe
>>8924484
>>8924492
>>8924501
>>8924508
>>8924509
>>8924512
beautiful

[Anonymous No.8935113]

>>8922725
Ive seen this before, years ago, and in that interval have not come across any better original work produced by this board.

[Anonymous No.8935141]

[Anonymous No.8935169]

>>8922725
holy shit

[Anonymous No.8935329]

[Anonymous No.8935685]

>>8934662
Those things are fucking terrifying

[Anonymous No.8935796]

>>8922657
>Joyce married this pleb

fucking why

[Anonymous No.8935806]

>>8935796
her farts mostly

[Anonymous No.8935821]

>>8935806
but how could he stand living with a pleb whom he dwarfed in every way? farts can't be the only reason, c-can they?

[Anonymous No.8935848]

>>8935821
You underestimate the power of the forts

[Anonymous No.8935873]

[Anonymous No.8936196]

>>8919672
from the thumbnail it looks like a dude inspecting a urinating woman's genitals from behind.

What's wrong with me?

[Anonymous No.8936335]

>>8925182
what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.8936356]

>>8936196
Holy shit. Anon what the fuck? Are you a genius or something? This is so amazing. The thought of this will keep me awake.

[Anonymous No.8936488]

>>8922725
Delete this right now

[Anonymous No.8936536]

>>8927123
kek

[Anonymous No.8936557]

>>8936196
i spat out my tea

[Anonymous No.8936664]

>>8922725

Christ is literally the answer to everything.

[Anonymous No.8936669]

>>8936335
I was drunk and couldn't figure what was going on in the picture
Then I spotted the jeans and a human body and I pulled my eyes to meet the persons look and bandana and only then did I realize it was DFW looking at me
Had a good laugh, after which I noticed too that he was hanging, it is all a bit too much don't you think? The infernal red, DFW's look and the distortion effect and all that. It's a funny picture

[Anonymous No.8936676]

>>8934724
these are worse than /fa/'s inspo dumps which is saying a lot

[Anonymous No.8936714]

[Anonymous No.8936739]

>>8934711
Kys, newfag

[Anonymous No.8936839]

>>8934732
These are some of the worst translations. It's almost a troll image.

[Anonymous No.8936860]

>>8934752
>>8934744
>>8934656
urban decay is the best

[Anonymous No.8936934]

[Anonymous No.8936937]

>>8936934

[Anonymous No.8936942]

>>8936937

[Anonymous No.8936949]

>>8936942

[Anonymous No.8936957]

>>8936949

[Anonymous No.8936958]

>>8936957

[Anonymous No.8936962]

>>8936958

[Anonymous No.8936968]

>>8936962

[Anonymous No.8936972]

>>8936968

[Anonymous No.8936979]

>>8936972

[Anonymous No.8936990]

>>8936979
Okthxbai

[Anonymous No.8937017]

>>8935821
The heart wants what the heart wants.

[Anonymous No.8937030]

>>8936972
>tfw I literally don't see anything in these kind of paintings
It doesn't stimulate me emotionally or intellectually
Can someone explain to me the worth of this?
I am sure these kinds of things wouldn't be appreciated anywhere hadn't the CIA poured money into them in cold war psych-ops

[Anonymous No.8937033]

>>8937017
t. Humbert Humbert

[Anonymous No.8937046]

>>8937030
All I get out of it is pretty colors and shapes vaguely reminiscent of fruit. Not sure the artist was really going for anything more than that.

[Anonymous No.8937050]

>>8937030
>I am sure these kinds of things wouldn't be appreciated anywhere hadn't the CIA poured money into them in cold war psych-ops
kill yourself

I expect these kinds of posts on /pol/ and /ic/, not on /lit/

[Anonymous No.8937053]

>>8922725
If you are aware of your doom, can you not change it? If you know your faults, can you not work to minimize them? Don't they say that the first step to beating addiction is admitting that one has a problem?

[Anonymous No.8937067]

>>8937030
You don't have to "see anyting", it's pure abstraction.
kandinsky was a synesthete and he got inspiration from music, hence why he named his paintings with musical terms (composition, improvisation, etc.). He thought that much like certain arrangements of notes can move us, a certain shade of red standing next to a blue can also move our soul. He was a mystic in his art, thought the artist was the one that could make vibrate the human soul through colours, notes, whatever.

It's also interesting to appreciate that he was one of the first abstract painters. At this time, if you wanted to paint a landscape or a human figure or a still life, you had thousands of years of tradition behind you. You had a very definite set of problems (rendering 3d in 2d, perspective, balance and composition, plasmating movement in a still picture etc.) and many approaches to solve them. However when you start working with only colour and shapes you are completely free and that is in some way terrifying, there is no tradition to rest on. Still he clearly worked on some old problems like balance, colour and harmony.

Stuff like pic related and >>8936968 is more interested in the pure handling of paint and the surrendering to impulses. In some way this is a mystic approach to art too, the abandoning to the creative frenzy, the extasis of creation. This is of course pure theory, many painters that suscribed to this style (Pollock I'm looking at you) actually planned and repainted their compositions to give this sort of wild spontaneous approach.

[Anonymous No.8937075]

>>8937050
Maybe on /ic/, but I don't see /pol/ as a reasonable place to expect these kinds of opinions
"Abstract" painting has always been a complete question mark in my mind and when it arose that the CIA had actually backed the movement in competition with the soviets it makes much more sense to me
Of course, it's only a partial truth, but it provides an answer for me

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20161004-was-modern-art-a-weapon-of-the-cia
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/modern-art-was-cia-weapon_0_n_3156994.html
http://gizmodo.com/5686753/how-the-cia-spent-secret-millions-turning-modern-art-into-a-cold-war-arsenal

[Anonymous No.8937082]

>>8937075
you are so autistic that you literally believe people cannot have different opinions from your own unless they were being manipulated by the CIA

how is that not /pol/?

[Anonymous No.8937087]

>>8937075
>>8937082
also, modern art existed 50 years prior to the Soviet Union existing. abstract art existed 20 years prior to the Soviet Union existing. Kandinsky painted that particular painting around 5 years before the Soviet Union existed

you are maximum retarded, friendo

[Anonymous No.8937118]

>>8937082
People have their opinions, I never said that
But you can't deny, in a world that revolves around money, that large sums concentrating on certain sektors of an industry doesn't affect the preferences and motives of the industry
In this case it is simply a fact that as money poured into a certain style of art, it became wanted and eventually a trend

>>8937087
Yes, but I have a suspicion that there wasn't as much interest beyond the casual controversy in it. At least the sums of money moving in the business were not on the level that they became with CIA's systematic support

You are very judgemental, my friend

[Anonymous No.8937127]

>>8937118
What does this have to do with the aesthetic value of the works though?
Are you going to diss renaissence Art because it was funded by a political family?
Or court paintings because the artists were supported by noble families?

[Anonymous No.8937167]

>>8937127
>What does this have to do with the aesthetic value of the works though?
Because CIA's choices weren't motivated by aesthetic values, but by political skirmishes. I consider this practical monopolisation of art unfair to what might have been. Since I consider abstract art aesthetically displeasing/less pleasing than many other forms of art, I think that a lesser form has been promoted and a great injustice has happened.
I'm not going to diss any artist that is encouraged by monetary means to do the best he can, as the renaissance painters were, since they were adviced rightly to create the most aesthetically pleasing, awe-inspiring and touching pieces of art they could.
They would promote reality to art

[Anonymous No.8937187]

>>8919644
that electric fireplace ruins the photo.

[Anonymous No.8937200]

>>8937167
>I'm not going to diss any artist that is encouraged by monetary means to do the best he can, as the renaissance painters were, since they were adviced rightly to create the most aesthetically pleasing, awe-inspiring and touching pieces of art they could.
So in this hypotetical conspiracy, the CIA had control over what the abstract artists painted? And somehow all other artists magically suscribed to the abstract expressionist movement, even though it was not "aesthetically pleasing"

>"I consider religious art of the middle ages more aesthetically displeasing than many other forms of art, since it was promoted for forcing christianism to the illiterate masses. I consider this practical monopolization of art unfair to what might have been, since the catholic church's (who actually had control over what artist could and could not paint) choices were motivated by practical rather than aesthetic values."

This is how retarded you sound.

Also
>complains about art that follows a political agenda
>posts a political piece himself
You must be a special kind of stupid

[Anonymous No.8937218]

>>8937118
>People have their opinions, I never said that
you said "these kinds of images wouldn't be appreciated anywhere hadn't the CIA poured money into them", don't backpedal
>>8937118
>Yes, but I have a suspicion there wasn't as much interest [...]
you mean in fine art market? of course, popular appreciation always lags behind the avant-garde. that's why its called avant-garde.

>>8937167
>Because CIA's choices weren't motivated by aesthetic values, but by political skirmishes.
they supported a society based on the values of personal expression and freedom of thought, as opposed to the heavily censored east bloc. what exactly is wrong with that?

>I consider this practical monopolisation of art unfair to what might have been
first of all, the CIA had much less to do with that than you think. popular demand is popular demand. unless you are super tinfoil-hat and think the CIA "brainwashed" people into liking something they wouldn't have otherwise enjoyed, which is obviously wrong as I've stated in my above posts.

>I think that a lesser form has been promoted and a great injustice has happened.
first of all, that's your opinion, so who cares. you can't control what people like or don't like, and what sells and doesn't sell.
secondly, you weren't alone in that view, see: pop art and minimalism and neo-realism and every other post-modernism movement that came as a reaction to the dominance of abstract expressionism.

[Anonymous No.8937232]

>>8937167
You clearly know fuck all about art so why even post your uneducated opinions in the first place?

[Anonymous No.8937281]

>>8936937
Who is this weenie genie?

[Anonymous No.8937547]

>>8937200
>in this hypothetical conspiracy, the CIA had control over what the abstract artists painted
In this factual history, CIA had no control over the arts creation, they only favored a certain kind of art.

Your strawman is a special kind of forced misunderstanding, the catholic church had an good eye for art, unlike the CIA. Nevermind the message of it.

Also, I complained about bad art that was supported due to politics, whilst I posted good art that was political

>>8937218
Allow me to backpedal a little, what I meant by the appreciation phrase was that once a trend has been constructed, it grows without relation to the quality of the trend.

>they supported a society based on the values of personal expression and freedom of thought, as opposed to the heavily censored east bloc
This is just positive vs. negative discrimination, but my problem doesn't lie in there, as the question is more about the quality of the art rather than the message.
A man can bottle his shit and note that it's a clever comment on the relationship between art production and human production. A man can paint a flashy baroque portrait and note that it is beautiful. Now what I'm saying is that one of these is good art and one is not.
And yes, I exaggerated the role of CIA, that's why I said that it's a "partial truth".

>first of all, that's your opinion, so who cares
At least a couple of people took a most intense interest in my opinion in this thread :-)
I'm interested in your decision to group pop art with minimalism and neo-realism as I'm a great friend of minimalism and neo-realism, yet I absolutely loathe pop art.

>>8937232
You clearly know fuck all about shitposting, so why even post your uneducated opinions in the first place?

[Anonymous No.8937622]

>>8928201
Don't know. I can say with 99% certainty that its not from any literary source. I posted it here because, to me, it inspires me to write.
Try reverse image searching for the artist. I'd do it for ya but I'm at work and my data is slower than balls with regards to images.

[Anonymous No.8937640]

>>8937547
>[...] the catholic church had an good eye for art, unlike the CIA.
>Also, I complained about bad art that was supported [...]
>[...] without relation to the quality of the trend [...]
>[...] quality of the art rather than the message.
>Now what I'm saying is that one of these is good art and one is not.

if you're just going to be autistic and push your personal opinion as fact (which is what I suspected you were doing in the first place before you started backpedaling), you're no longer worth the time it takes to reply to your posts.

>I'm interested in your decision to group pop art with minimalism and neo-realism as I'm a great friend of minimalism and neo-realism, yet I absolutely loathe pop art.
once again, stop trying to insert your subjective views into a historical context. pop art was the first and most widespread reaction to abstract expressionism. the fact that you don't know this means you really need to pick up an art history book before posting about the topic again.

[Anonymous No.8937647]

>>8937167
Wow I didn't know the CIA operated out of early 20th-century Russia and Germany. The more you know!

[Anonymous No.8937653]

>>8937547
>I complained about bad art that was supported due to politics, whilst I posted good art that was political
And what makes this art better than the one you complain about? Your opinion?

>Your strawman is a special kind of forced misunderstanding, the catholic church had an good eye for art, unlike the CIA. Nevermind the message of it.
What is this "good eye"? Let me guess, aligning with your opinion?

Basically your argument boils down to "I don't like abstract art so all people that like it are wrong and only do so because CIA sponsored it. Btw sponsoring art that I like is fine"

>>8928201
Atkinson Grimshaw, he painted a lot of these kind of smokey, foggy british cities. You'll probably like most of his work.

[Anonymous No.8937669]

>>8937547
>I'm interested in your decision to group pop art with minimalism and neo-realism

He literally told you in the paragraph you are responding to. They were artistic reactions to abstract expressionism which began to wane before the 60s. Abstract expressionism had its heyday for only about 15 - 20 years after the end of the Second World War. It's a 'high point' of modernism (in terms of Greenbergian theory) but barely representative of all modernist movements or even art in general produced during the 20th century. In fact it is barely linked to the 'styles' that everyone complains about in terms of shit and piss in art (i.e. the worst case scenario used to make an argument even though this kind of art is extremely rare) which is more Duchampian (who had a revival in the late 50s, 60s after a retrospective rather than being a constant influence since Fountain) than the Cubist and Surrealist modes which form precedents for the New York school.

[Anonymous No.8937679]

>>8937167
>Because CIA's choices weren't motivated by aesthetic values

CIA's choices were motivated by aesthetic values, since Clement Greenberg had the most comprehensive and relevant aesthetic theory at the time.

[Anonymous No.8937687]

>>8920820
now that you mention it...

also anything by John Attinkson Grimshaw. here's an example:

[Anonymous No.8937692]

What is it about /pol/ and abstract art? Why does it trigger them so much?
Is it a vestige of the anti-elitist idea of "degenerate art" or are they simply retarded?

[Anonymous No.8937693]

>>8937679
interested to hear why you are so confident in that statement when the CIA's intentions have never even been confirmed, nor has any proof been presented suggesting that they had some devious master plan and weren't just promoting american culture by funding a few exhibitions

[Anonymous No.8937697]

>>8921048
How is reading any different

[Anonymous No.8937700]

>>8937232

Dude

we're on 4chan

[Anonymous No.8937704]

>>8936839
how do you know a translation is good?

[Anonymous No.8937709]

>>8937700
Shit

I want out, how do I go back to >>>reddit

[Anonymous No.8937716]

>>8937704
check how many stars Homer gave the book on goodreads

[Anonymous No.8937717]

>>8937693
Because, Dr. Pavel, I'm CIA.

[Anonymous No.8937722]

>>8937640
>push your personal opinion as fact
It is fact to me, and it is fact to many who would agree with the example that I gave.

>stop trying to insert your subjective views into a historical context
I would never do that, I just like hearing peoples opinions and their basis for them. And yes, I really need to pick up an art history book someday. Recommendations?

>>8937647
Abstract art's position in 1950's USA and onwards sure is different from early 20th century Russia and Germany. The more you know!

>>8937653
>Your opinion?
To me, yes.

>What is this "good eye"? Let me guess, aligning with your opinion?
It is my opinion that my opinion often lines up with things that I consider great. In my opinion, of course. But I think that if anyone was to compare the Sixtus chapel to Khrushchyovka architecture, one would say that the Sixtus chapel is more beautiful. It is only my opinion, but I think there is more to it than just my opinion.
Beautiful painting btw!

>>8937669
Thanks for the expansion, missed the meaning of the grouping (I'm tired, don't lynch me)

>>8937679
>CIA's choices were motivated by aesthetic values
For you

>>8937692
I don't browse /pol/, but I think that they are just playing the "degenerate art" meme
I simply don't see the value of abstract painting and am dumbfounded by the sums of money that move in the business, provoking a type of bitterness towards all the lost potential that could have proven much more fulfilling and meaningful than just being the skeletons of a theory on a canvas

[Anonymous No.8937725]

>>8937693
>He doesn't know about the jews' secret plan

[Anonymous No.8937728]

[Anonymous No.8937733]

[Anonymous No.8937741]

>>8937722
>the skeletons of a theory on a canvas
You're looking at it wrong
Abstract expressionism is not conceptual art.

[Anonymous No.8937742]

[Anonymous No.8937749]

>>8937722
>I really need to pick up an art history book someday. Recommendations?
Gombrich's Story of Art is great
He also hates abstract art so it should be right up your alley.

[Anonymous No.8937834]

>>8937722
I don't think you fully understand what an opinion is, lmao

[Anonymous No.8937841]

>>8937749
Sounds like a good honest guy. Thanks!

>>8937741
But I'm a conceptual man!

[Anonymous No.8938305]

>>8937167
>Since I consider abstract art aesthetically displeasing/less pleasing than many other forms of art, I think that a lesser form has been promoted and a great injustice has happened.
> [the renaissance painters] were adviced rightly to create the most aesthetically pleasing, awe-inspiring and touching pieces of art they could.
>They would promote reality to art

>>8937547
>the catholic church had an good eye for art
>the question is more about the quality of the art rather than the message.

It appears that your real qualm here is that you just don't like modern art, and your whole CIA psy-op was just a lazy justification for this opinion. This discussion would have been a lot better if you'd advanced your argument from an aesthetic position.

[Anonymous No.8938353]

Does /lit/ have any sci-fi/tech pics to contribute? I'm slogging along inspiration wise on a short novel I have to do for class, centered on the inner workings of an AI, if there are any pictures relating to it.

[Anonymous No.8938363]

>>8938353
Nope but I have this picture of a beaver

[Anonymous No.8938727]

>>8924581
the yawfie stares and stares and stares
and stares and stares and stares and stares

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8938767]

>>8937281
Ivana Karbanova

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8938803]

>>8938353
>centered on the inner workings of an AI
What kind of pictures would fit that?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8938812]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8938853]

[Anonymous No.8938864]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8938885]

>>8938864
Do you know what he says?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8938893]

>Why did I save this one?

Must have been the cozy factor.

[Anonymous No.8938905]

>>8938885
Let everything blaze in the fire, my child.

[Anonymous No.8938961]

>>8938893
Holy shit that is comfy.

I want books for this feel

[Anonymous No.8938978]

>>8938812
>>8938853
>>8938864
>>8938885
>>8938893
when are you going to stop with the deviantart tier shit? at this point I can't tell if you're spamming or seriously have taste this bad

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8939013]

>>8938978
Saved long ago, grouped into a single folder called "Spectrum-ish", named after a picture book series that features this kind of thing. I have a wide range of tastes and am going to switch gears. Are you goign to say you hate it all till you see something third Reich-ish?

Don't particularly like that cozy piece much anymore, for the record.

[Denny !/sNcNkUk2Y No.8939036]

I got soething

[Anonymous No.8939062]

>>8935821
I think most men don't care much if their wife is intelligent

[Anonymous No.8939077]

>>8930009
Cities are a meme

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8939084]

>>8939036
>I got soething
AIDS?

[Anonymous No.8939142]

>>8939084
>you will never be a new england prep

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8939301]

>>8939142
>Tfw never going to have bourgeoisie problems

[Anonymous No.8939307]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8939317]

[Anonymous No.8939319]

[Anonymous No.8939336]

>>8939301
or good taste, apparently. enjoy your candy shake.

[Anonymous No.8939768]

>>8936356
please tell me if you're being sarcastic to insult me. I will accept it, but only if you tell me.

>>8936557
glad I helped you enjoy your day a little more

have some cozy

[Anonymous No.8939789]

>>8923293
then how about you stop fUCKING SAVING THUMBNAILS YOU SPERGLORD

[Anonymous No.8939820]

>>8937700
Are you actually fucking retarded? Do you still come to 4chan for the "lolz" and see it as the m0st d4ng3r0us pl4c3 on the interwebzz!!!! The fact that this is 4chan shouldn't detract from the ability to be able to have a normal fucking conversation.

[Anonymous No.8940136]

[Anonymous No.8940315]

>>8934735
future suburban mum pic tier

[Anonymous No.8940328]

>>8925063

*teleports behind you* pssh, nothin personnel kid

[Anonymous No.8940350]

>>8939768
I was not being sarcastic. It was a pretty funny observation. Changed the way I look at that thumbnail forever. You have magic eyes Anon.

[Anonymous No.8940588]

>>8922725
DELETE THIS. NOW

[Anonymous No.8941250]

>>8919563
What is this shit?

[Anonymous No.8941314]

>>8921048
>tfw no escape from capitalist society

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8941358]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8941372]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8941378]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.8941384]

>>8941378
Sterling Hundley. Bunch of others look very "lit" or whatever.