/lit/ - Literature

>>5274088

He said art is just imitation, mimesis. He regards art as being caused by authentic objects of beauty and lacking in sense because of that. This is made especially bad for him because art doesn't necessarily direct further inquiry into the origin of the form (in this he pretty much laid the foundations for Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, but this is a digression).

Can we even create a reading movement when the nature of using this board denies us the act itself?

Question for OP: If we 'shoot' god, are we shooting God with Himself by His self?

>It is time for philosophy to return to aestetics and improve it.

Could you elaborate on how you got to that conclusion?