/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1637960]

What have you learned from a painting? What kind of medium calls itself art without having a plot etc etc fuck it i am tired

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1637965]

>they wont spell it out for me so it must be pointless

[Anonymous No.1637972]

>>1637965

no i mean i am tired of trying to fight cemented power structures with logic and rhetoric, culture is whatever you want it to be, youre right whatever im fucking moving

[Anonymous No.1637976]

You don't need a plot. Plots are secnarios tacked end on end like a train car. Much like you might read a book, you might look at a series of paintings or sculptures.

Representation is an insidious activity. In a perfect world, things would only present themselves, and resist others re-presenting them. Art (be it books, film, painting, advertising) or better Artifice is the act of creating something thats not present. This is a very important activity.

If you didn't believe in the importance of representation you wouldn't speak whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.1637984]

>>1637976

or video games or theater or architecture but you know whatever fuck it after ~3 years dealing with this shit i kind of want nobody to ever produce anything again

[Anonymous No.1637990]

Thats strange, I think representations are possibly the most positive thing that exists. There's an opportunity available to you, to anyone.

[Anonymous No.1638012]

the trick is not focusing too much on words. Words are great, but you can communicate with out them, or combine them with other languages. You can't read painting like you read a book, there isn't text on it (or ussually much text at least). Still, you can read it using words.

Questions to ask any work of art.
Does this reflect who I am? If so why?
Does it upset me? If so why?
What does it say about other people?
Why would the author make it?
What is it about? What can it be about?
What does it point at?
What does it say about the thing it points at?

[Anonymous No.1638021]

Its kind of strange you would be on 4chan and not like painting, if you ask me. 4chan relies on the creation of clever images. If it was just a place for sharing information, and not a place of creation, it'd be boring as hell. Why do you like 4chan and not painting?

[Anonymous No.1638031]

>>1638021

horrible character flaws and mental issues

[Anonymous No.1638040]

>>1638031
This made me laugh. Are you talking about painters or 4channers?

[Anonymous No.1638041]

>>1638040

yes

[Anonymous No.1638045]

Are you enjoying these Jeff Koons sculptures?

[Anonymous No.1638048]

>>1638045

yes thanks

[Anonymous No.1638056]

Heres more!

[No.1638059]

I'm confused, are you trying to say that you have to learn from something for it to be art? Cause that would rule out a lot of music too.

[Anonymous No.1638064]

Here's a different artist. Charles Ray, Plank Piece

[Anonymous No.1638073]

>>1638059

that is not at all it, i was being sarcastic in OP

[Anonymous No.1638090]

>>1638059
No, you don't need to learn something for it to be art. You should try to learn something. If you learn a reason or liking it or dislking it, thats great. But you can't expect to learn something (in the manner you're using learn) from every representation you see.

In another sense you can't but help learn something from any kind of art you view (be it film, fiction, non-fiction, painting, theatre, music, whatever). The trick is setting up your criteria for what it is you like and dislike, and keeping that criteria subject to change.

I've learned from this picture of Manny Yarborough and Miley Cyrus. There is something about the juxtaposition of extremes. People who craft their images in extremely different manners, but do so in equal amounts.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638112]

can we please have some art that isn't the product of resentful talentless idiots

[Anonymous No.1638118]

Abstract Painting is something I've had trouble with. It can veer so far way from representation that it's easy to call it unreadable. The more you look at, the better a sense you have of what is "normative" and what is "aberrant". The languages are idiosyncratic, and you need new ways of thinking about them.

Jonathan Lasker is a painter I really like There is something kind of silly and upside down about his paintings. They ussually have discernable systems, expectations for how lines and sections of color work. But at the same time, these systems are kind of stupid. They have lumpy marks, akward curves. Take a look at the design of a Mac Book Pro and this Lasker painting. The Mac Book Pro reeks of efficiency, pureness, coolness. The Lasker Painting reeks of stupidity and mistakes, by comparison. Comparison becomes a good tool to learn and read abstract painting.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638119]

jesus christ

[Anonymous No.1638126]

lol delete this fucking thread

[No.1638127]

>>1638112

Yeah! Less dead sharks in formaldehyde, more statues.

[Anonymous No.1638133]

D&E, I find it weird you're interested in post-modern writing but not art. The idea that Koons is talentless or resentful is a point of view I wouldn't expect out of you.

Koon's work is very sarcastic and tasteless. But what grounds are their for sincerity or taste? This isn't to say that sarcasm and tastelessness have grounds because of that, but that simply what you're identifying as talent resides in some kind of classicist paradigm. To me Koons' is extremely talented.

[Anonymous No.1638135]

>>1638112
Do you have something against modernist art?

[Anonymous No.1638139]

>>1638127
err.. if you look up above you'll find quite a few statues and no dead sharks in tanks.

Here is Jeff Koons' statue Louis XIV

[Anonymous No.1638142]

Here is one of my favorite artists Stelarc, showing off his Third Ear.

[Anonymous No.1638144]

>>1638126

why, explain
or you know just poop out some more unelaborated opinions...

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638159]

>>1638133
>what you're identifying as talent resides in some kind of classicist paradigm
>classicist paradigm
Slave rhetoric par excellence. If I happen to like the best works of human art which happen to be old, it's just being classicist. If I happen to enjoy music crafted with amazing intricacy that ocurred 200 years ago over some idiot rhythmically banging garbage cans - it's classicist.
I do admit I happen to adhere to a lot of classicist paradigms, like that one where lifting heavy weights is a good way to gain muscle. Another classicist paradigm I adhere to is not eating shit (literally and metaphorically) because I don't want to get sick or unhealthy. Man, I am such a classicist.
As I said, just another strategy for inferiors to pass off their useless crap as somehow not total canaille.

[Anonymous No.1638172]

>>1638159
C'mon DE. All your saying is that the art I posted up above is crap. Spell it out more, I called it a classicist paradigm because I want to hear you say what good art is, not for you to continue disparaging art you don't like. Viewing Jeff Koons is not like eating feces and you know it. I imagine if you ate feces, it'd upset you in a very different way than Jeff Koons.

Intricacy? Talent? Get more specific, what should art do, in your opinion?

[Anonymous No.1638181]

Here's a richard prince painting I enjoy. Good deadpan humor, in a blunt manner. Its like painting and stand up smashed together. It leaves you with that "pff... is that it?" kind of a feeling. The trick is learning to laugh.

[No.1638184]

>>1638139

I was referring to contemporary art, not this thread.

[Anonymous No.1638185]

This might appeal to the classic aesthetics better. Charlie White's Patrimony

[Discussion, Duke of Divine Providence, Adherent of Ethical Egoism !ycQrYHjdvM No.1638187]

[Anonymous No.1638192]

charlie white's The Persuaders

[Anonymous No.1638193]

>>1638185
IT'SSS AWW-RIGHTTT!!!

[Anonymous No.1638198]

>>1637960

I found where Wally was.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638205]

>>1638172
>what should art do
Now typically I don't ever engage in "shoulds" because ethical prescriptive statements are open to infinite regresses, but I will make a temporary exception for once. Art "should" contribute to human flourishing, and not just any flourishing, but the highest, fullest possible human flourishing.

[Anonymous No.1638218]

>>1638205

video games made me an anstronaut

[Anonymous No.1638243]

>>1638205
Human flourishing. Kind of hard to pin down. I've heard the idea used in ethics before. Most things are too double sided to be considered flourshing or harmful. Eating shit is easy, we have a biological system in play, and death and sickness are easy to identify as not flourshing.

Its alot trickier with art. Much of the art of the Renisance and Middle Ages is extremely caught up in Christianity and patronage. You can't represent homosexuality in the manner of Da Vinci, it just doesn't work. It becomes a parody. Their are many subjects which do not flourish under a "classicist paradigm".

As for your problems with should, I guess I'm in a different position than you. I make art and I write. I am always asking myself what i "should" make. Who cares about not making prescriptions for others? People do it all the time. Don't be afraid of it, simply because its subjectively limited. Do you have a basis for telling others what to do? No. But if you let that stop you, then you wouldn't represent at all. You wouldn't even speak.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638249]

Now don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that it all went to shit after X, Y, Z dates or artists, far from it. There are still however many perfectly talented artists out there who are capable of creating works that contribute significantly to human flourishing which are not dependent on the "classicist paradigm", that depart from a certain set of social-historical-culturally specific rules in other words. New rules certainly come along every so often and new activities (i.e. video games) come along which offer new avenues of the production of human mastery to contribute to flourishing, but those rules and activities don't come out of nowhere; and we are perfectly entitled to ask whether they arose in an effort to overcome existing forms through more powerful, more talented mastery or are they an attempt at subversion, a changing or invention of the rules to suit and exemplify exemplify the very people who do not have the talent to adhere to or overcome productively their predecessors, inferior people in other words, trying to smuggle in their inferior values as the superior.

[Anonymous No.1638281]

>>1638249
Isn't it kind of hard to determine what is overcoming and what is subversion? To me, working to closely to tradition is not overcoming, but following. And who says the predecessors are any good in the first place? Art History could be told as a story of generations and movements reacting against the previous one. Jeff Koons is no less linked this situation than a painter like Van Gogh is.

The art you've posted doesn't upset me because of its traditional methods (fairly realistic painting), but its themes. the painting of the women with the babies, I don't relate to. It's some kind of metaphor for origins and sustenance, but I'm not too clear at what it's getting at. The Painting of the women in the park with the dog is an expierence I have no interest in either, it's stuffy "gentile" behavior. the Coastline painting I dislike the most. It triumphant and epic nature are very cliche to me. I can't buy the existential Man vs the Ocean (the chaotic, the unknown, the unconcious. It reminds me too much of Sarte. It's romantic picturesqueness at its worst. The Ocean is a fucking Ocean, don't over do it with sentimental imagery.

[Anonymous No.1638285]

Here is Mr. Noodle by brandon bird

[Anonymous No.1638293]

Didn't read anything expect OP.

Just buck up, stop being so proud, and read an interpretation if you don't understand it. If you're still having trouble seeing the point I'd suggest you take an art history/appreciation course. If you still are having trouble then I guess you just don't like/get painting.

Pic related in that it's an awesome painting.

[Anonymous No.1638295]

>>1638285
lol?

[Anonymous No.1638302]

Doh, Brandon Bird's website is tricky, the image I saved wasn't a completed Mr. Noodle. Go here and look at it.

http://www.brandonbird.com/mr_noodle.html

[Anonymous No.1638318]

my relative importance in the grand scheme of things.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638320]

>>1638281
>Isn't it kind of hard to determine what is overcoming and what is subversion?
Not particularly, one simply evaluates the values that underlie such a process; a value which overcomes contributes to life in a variety of more powerful ways, a value which subverts typically is a value which defeats itself or devalues life. Of course, I'm not saying we can't have exceptions, because you can't have the gold without the shit, and vice versa, it simply becomes a problem when the shit is dominating.

>To me, working to closely to tradition is not overcoming, but following
There isn't really a problem here either; you don't have to invent new rules every time you play a game of chess or football, you simply play better. It's ludicrous to object that chess needs to be overcome because one plays by the same rules every single time.

>who says the predecessors are any good in the first place?
Those of us who value mastery, and the increasing of mastery is intrinsic to human flourishing

1/2

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638323]

>>1638281

>The art you've posted doesn't upset me because of its traditional methods (fairly realistic painting), but its themes. the painting of the women with the babies, I don't relate to. It's some kind of metaphor for origins and sustenance, but I'm not too clear at what it's getting at. The Painting of the women in the park with the dog is an expierence I have no interest in either, it's stuffy "gentile" behavior. the Coastline painting I dislike the most. It triumphant and epic nature are very cliche to me. I can't buy the existential Man vs the Ocean (the chaotic, the unknown, the unconcious. It reminds me too much of Sarte. It's romantic picturesqueness at its worst. The Ocean is a fucking Ocean, don't over do it with sentimental imagery.
Well then we differ on what we got out of them. I don't look for "themes" or "allusions" or any such things in paintings, I simply value their mastery; their complexity of technique, the use of color and perspective and so on and so forth. The same holds for me with literature (mastery of form and literary device) and music (harmony, dynamics etc etc). All of these things show talent, ingenuity, genius whereas "themes" and so forth don't, they're abstract concepts which have no inherent quality. You could have a photo of shit that deals with the theme of sewage, or you could have a masterful painting of a sewer. Theme doesn't care about individual talent.

2/2

[Anonymous No.1638334]

>>1638323
I do favor content over form. To me, formal methods are merely tools for exploring ideas. I don't make sculptures to get better at using a table saw. This is important, as the table saw allows me to make many things, but what is more important is what i get out of re-presenting. To re-present means to show again, the object of representation isn't so important as how the representation happens. In this manner, form comes back into play. My troubles with the paintings you posted arise out of a discrepancy between what the world presents to me, and how/what those painters represent. Technical Mastery can be used for anything. I put extreme importance on how it's used. So you wont find me critiquing Justin Beiber's lack of musical sophistication, but the patheticness of its message and identity.

[Anonymous No.1638337]

>>1638249

>or are they an attempt at subversion, a changing or invention of the rules to suit and exemplify exemplify the very people who do not have the talent to adhere to or overcome productively their predecessors, inferior people in other words, trying to smuggle in their inferior values as the superior.

right on the head.

[Anonymous No.1638343]

I think the chess metaphor is a bad one. Representation isn't a game but a battle of ideology. Their are no rules, flat out, only a context of what came before. If chess was enough, no one would do anything but play chess. Chess isn't enough.

[Anonymous No.1638355]

>>1638337
I disagree. Superiority and Inferiority are values based purely on position. The idea that subversion is done from a position beneath authority is correct. If we take the arguement outside of art it would essentially argue against every minority position. It would support the status quo and back repression. the arguement would mean that anyone who acts out of a position of tactics instead of strategy is a measly rat that should be killed.

[Anonymous No.1638361]

>>1638334
>I do favor content over form. To me, formal methods are merely tools for exploring ideas. I don't make sculptures to get better at using a table saw.

Bad comparison; master prose stylists don't write to get better at penmanship or typing.

[Anonymous No.1638366]

I also want to point out that your idea of technical mastery is not as objective as you might think. You have to resort to ideas of ethics and superiority/inferiority. Either you have grounds outside of the technical mastery for this, or you're being tautological. Thats why I said you were supporting dominant views of a classical paradigm. If you really want to get into what is subversive and what is complicit, you'll either need to spout some religuous rhetoric or, like you have, go into a psuedo-biological approach about furthering the species. I don't think their is good grounds for a biological approach to aeshetics or ethics. It's too muddled up culture and subjectivity. Don't replace God with DNA.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638383]

>>1638334
>To re-present means to show again, the object of representation isn't so important as how the representation happens
This isn't directly related but the problem I have with seeing Art as representation is that it seems to ignore the fact that such an act contributes nothing to Art; perception is already a creative act as necessitated by the unique human viewpoint, to say of this that it must be representative is redundant and demands of the artist that he make a creative act of the already creative act of perceiving.

>Technical Mastery can be used for anything
As far as I am concerned either Technical Mastery, like any other human activity conceivable, either contributes to human flourishing or detracts from it. Same goes for ideologies, although not so readily or without a billion caveats.

>I put extreme importance on how it's used
Again, I would say you can it can either be used for flourishing or to detract from it

>>1638355
>Superiority and Inferiority are values based purely on position
Yes, the position of the strong and the weak.

>minority position
To say of something that it is a minority is simply an underhanded way of demanding more favourable power relations for a certain group. One could just as easily say "group that does not have as many numbers as the bigger group nor the strength to become the dominant group" instead of "minority" but one doesn't because one is asserting, consciously or unconsciously, certain power relations.

>It would support the status quo and back repression
Same goes for both those terms; you can just as easily describe status quo as the continued dominance of a higher power, and you can describe repression as the inability of some group to overcome a more dominant power. All thoroughly ideological terms on the part of the resentful and inferior who would not need such terms in the first place if they were strong.

[faded&elated !fXlRxX2Wtg No.1638391]

I think some people here are being a little dismissive of visual art. You need to put work into understanding it, just like written word. You also need to understand that you may not be equipped with the proper knowledge to interpret certain works, particularly those that are older.

I'll be transcribing some of the Introduction to Janson's History of Art: The Western Tradition 8th Edition in a subsequent post. It should address much of what has been talked about.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638397]

>>1638366
>I also want to point out that your idea of technical mastery is not as objective as you might think. You have to resort to ideas of ethics and superiority/inferiority.
There is nothing ethical about any of this. Technical mastery is essentially simply a series of processes which contribute greatly to life; in no way different to how one takes vitamins to enhance one's health or has a good diet. There are only a certain number of parameters under which one can achieve good health, or strong muscles or technical mastery, and they all amount to the same outcome; the increase of flourishing. None of this should be particularly shocking unless you can't take care of yourself or are weak and have weak values.

[Anonymous No.1638415]

>>1638383
I think the idea that an activity can be judged to assist or not assist human flourishing is bogus. How could you ever know if a painting assisted or didn't asst human flourishing? Do you ask people and get an average? What objective basis is there for this?

take Nazi sculpture. A Nazi might say that since it promotes his ideology it assists in human flourishing. A Jew would say the exact opposite. Why trust either? Does the representation assist in YOUR thinking of the world? Thats what I'd be more interested in. I don't want to have a human, objective, universal or global basis for good art. I'm going to look for artwork that makes me "flourish". Jeff Koons makes me "flourish".

And for someone into post-modernism, don't you think that this flourishing of humanity idea is a little too totalizing? I mean, its a few steps away from christian morality as it is.

Ah, I see my statements about minorities didn't trigger liberal sympathy in you. You are correct. If you don't like something, be it suberversive or normative, you should probably attempt to destroy or ridicule it. This is the battle of ideology and representation I spoke of. Its why I described the Measure of a Coastline painting as a cliche of existenialism and romanticism instead of using those languages to describe it.

But you shouldn't be mistaken about Jeff Koons being inferior (in your terms). He's the top of the art world, he sells things for millions. He had a giant inflatable bunny rabbit sculpture in the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade. He isn't weak, in your terms, by any means.

But it wasn't always that way. Power changes. To merely back everything that is powerful is short sighted. At times, things that aren't yet cool or powerful should be supported.

[Anonymous No.1638418]

I did not get my picture of the world by satisfying myself of its correctness; nor do I have it because I am satisfied of its correctness. No: it is the inherited background against which I distinguish between true and false

[Anonymous No.1638419]

>>1638418
this is deeply wrong btw but gets on the right track at least.

[faded&elated !!Sz9aYFda0pg No.1638426]

Why in 1962 did Andy Warhol make a painting entitled Gold Marilyn Monroe? This almost 7 foot high canvas was produced shortly after the death of the Hollywood screen star and sex symbol. It was not commissioned and obviously Monroe never "sat" for it, an activity that we generally associate with portraiture. Instead Warhol worked from a press photograph, a still from the 1953 movie Niagara, which he cropped to his liking and then transferred onto canvas using silkscreen.

Warhol's painting is not a conventional portrait of Monroe but rather a pastiche of the public image of the film star as propagated by the mass media. Warhol imitates the sloppy, gritty look and feel of color newspaper reproductions of the period, when the colors were often misregistered, aligning imperfectly with the image, and the colors themselves were "off", meaning not quite right. The Marilyn we are looking at is the impersonal celebrity of the media, the commodity being pushed by the film industry. She is supposedly glamorous, with her lush red lipstick and bright blond hair, but instead she appears pathetically tacky because of the grimy black ink and garish color of her blond hair as it becomes bright yellow and her flesh tone turns pink.

[Anonymous No.1638429]

>>1638397
Sure, but in art we don't have a biological system that will tell us good and bad in a measurable way. We can know vitamins are good and poisons are bad. Painting just simply can't be registered in this manner, with out appealing to an idea of what an appropriate painting is. If we lived 100 years ago, you could appeal to art history to defend against something like Jeff Koons. But now he is Art History.

If you relate Koons to Da Vinci, you could say he is subverting. If you relate Koons to Duchamp, you might say he is overcoming.

To now that a painting assists in flourshing, you need to define what kinds of values the art should instill. Thats how it becomes an ethical issue. Paintings are ideas to float around in the brain. They are ideological. They are not nutritious. If they were, it would be a much easier situation.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638447]

>>1638415
>how could you ever know if a painting assisted or didn't asst human flourishing?
Does it contribute to one's life more. Has it made life more enjoyable people, has it inspired more people to make art which is more masterful, etc. All of this doesn't happen over a single night you know. In essence; does it contribute more value, overall, to the world.

>A Nazi might say that since it promotes his ideology it assists in human flourishing. A Jew would say the exact opposite
One or both might have values which undermine life. If you had to pick between the two, and you don't, you simply revalue their respective values and see which ideology is more conducive to the greater flourishing and continuance of life.

>I don't want to have a human, objective, universal or global basis for good art. I'm going to look for artwork that makes me "flourish". Jeff Koons makes me "flourish".
That's perfectly fine, none of what I've said is universal or objective or global, it simply demonstrates the best possible conditions for flourishing of the strong. Whether you adhere to these or are capable of in the first place is your own business.

>don't you think that this flourishing of humanity idea is a little too totalizing?
It's not totalizing, as I've said, you're free to do whatever you want. All I'm concerned with is having the best possible life with the most value. What could possibly be of more importance, what could possibly be more beautiful, more sublime.

>But you shouldn't be mistaken about Jeff Koons being inferior (in your terms). He's the top of the art world, he sells things for millions. He had a giant inflatable bunny rabbit sculpture in the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade. He isn't weak, in your terms, by any means.
No, he is a strong player of a weak game, all credit where it is due. Art gets very tricky in the 20th century in the context of the consumer society, absurdism and so on.

[faded&elated !!Sz9aYFda0pg No.1638448]

>>1638426
Her personality is impenetrable, reduced to a sad, lifeless public smile. Prompted by Monroe's suicide, Gold Marilyn Monroe presents the real Marilyn - a depressed, often miserable person, who, in this textureless, detailless, unnaturalistic image, is becoming a blur fading into memory. Warhol has brilliantly expressed the indifference of the mass media, whose objective is to promote celebrities by saturating a thirsty public with their likenesses but which tells us nothing meaningful about them and shows no concern for them. Monroe's image is used simply to sell a product, much as the alluring and often jazzy packaging of Brillo soap pads or Campbell's soup cans is designed to make a product alluring without telling us anything about the product itself. The packaging is just camouflage. As a sentimental touch, Warhol floats Marilyn's head in a sea of gold paint, embedding her in an eternal realm previously reserved for use in icons of Christ and the Virgin Mary, which immerse these religious figures in a spiritual aura of golden, heavenly light. But Warhol's revered Marilyn is sadly dwarfed by her celestial gold surrounding, adding to the tragic sense of this powerful portrait, which trenchantly comments on the enormous gulf existing between public image and private reality.

-Janson's History of Art (slightly edited by me for space)

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638488]

>>1638429
>Sure, but in art we don't have a biological system that will tell us good and bad in a measurable way
Really? what part of art isn't part of a biological system? The object is picked up by the eye and funnelled through a retina and so on and so forth into the brain and processed through neurons. None of this is abstract in anyway, the process is entirely biological.

>Painting just simply can't be registered in this manner
I've been arguing to the contrary, and let me reformulate that for a minute to demonstrate how suspicious it sounds

>weighlifting just simply can't be registered in this manner, with out appealing to an idea of what an appropriate weightlifting is

>chessplaying just simply can't be registered in this manner, with out appealing to an idea of what an appropriate chessplaying is

In both of these cases we have a perfectly good idea of what the relevant activities are. I don't see how it is any different with painting.

>To now that a painting assists in flourshing, you need to define what kinds of values the art should instill. Thats how it becomes an ethical issue.
Really the only ethical issue is whether you want to accept life as the highest value; if you don't there's absolutely nothing to talk about for me. If one accepts life as the highest value all one need is to simply put for ethical descriptive propositions which denote the conditions for the fulfillment of the best possible human flourishing, which are perfectly valid propositions.

>They are ideological. They are not nutritious.
Everything is ideological, that has never stopped a large quantity of it being nutritious. A good painting gives more value to my life in the same way a good meal does or a good album.

>>1638418
>picture theory of the world
So brosef tell me how exactly a correspondence theory corresponds without witchcraft or magick or "it just does" plz

[Anonymous No.1638489]

>>1638426
if you don't think Warhol's purpose in art was to demonstrate how the media has had a negative effect on art and how shitty modern art is, you're doing it wrong.

[faded&elated !!Sz9aYFda0pg No.1638501]

>>1638489
1. If you think that wasn't quoted Janson's History of Art you're reading wrong.

2. If that's honestly what you got from that passage you're not very good at this. Otherwise I've just been trolled (congrats).

[Anonymous No.1638508]

>>1638501
I'm referring to the essay and its writer being wrong, not to mention being the exact kind of person Warhol was making fun of through his art.

[Anonymous No.1638516]

>>1638447
Again, what basis do you have to determine what is the best kind of flourishing? Is it democracy, is it fascism, is anarchy? You couldn't possibly know what makes things flourish the most. And the idea of some kind of mass vote is contradicted by your statements about 20th century art being a weak game. Don't you think conservatives would have said the same thing in the 19th century?

This flourishing is inherently subjective. Paintings you identified as leading to flourishing, I've identified as being bad.

>>One or both might have values which undermine life. If you had to pick between the two, and you don't, you simply revalue their respective values and see which ideology is more conducive to the greater flourishing and continuance of life.

Change "more conductive to greater flourishing and continuance of life" to more conductive to personal learning, and I'm all with you. You can't evaluate what undermines life, unless you take up a position with values yourself.

for instance, take an author like Lyotard who at times is a little obssessed with the solar explosion that will have in 2.5 million years. To him, the greatest thing for humans to work on, is to find away out of terresterial life, out of terrestrial and solar dependency. From that perspect all painting could be detrimental, because its not adressing the issue of what to do about the sun's explosion.

Or take a Muslim who is against the depiction of images, and insists that the human form should not be represented. To him, nearly all classical painting becomes blasphemy, an afront to the flourshing of god's will.

Do you not agree that this idea of the flourishing of life is much more tricky than you suppose, especially when we don't have biological feedback systems (like vitamins and poisons do)?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638521]

>>1638426
>Warhol imitates the sloppy, gritty look and feel of color newspaper reproductions of the period, when the colors were often misregistered, aligning imperfectly with the image, and the colors themselves were "off", meaning not quite right
Okay, so it looks shit because newspaper reproductions of the period looks shit. Great, what can you expect when you imitate shit.
Everything that comes after is essentially superflous fluff that has nothing to do with the composition of the work itself, which is woefully simplistic.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638534]

>>1638516
>what basis do you have to determine what is the best kind of flourishing? Is it democracy, is it fascism, is anarchy? You couldn't possibly know what makes things flourish the most
I do know what makes things flourish the most; which has the most and most correct values which lend themselves to flourishing.

>This flourishing is inherently subjective.
It is; whether you want to flourish is up to you.

>Paintings you identified as leading to flourishing I've identified as being bad
I've identified it as leading to flourishing because my values are those which are most conducive to life. How could yours possibly be any better? Have you considered the possibility you simply have inferior taste, that you simply don't have the biological composition necessary in order to experience stronger values?

>From that perspect all painting could be detrimental, because its not adressing the issue of what to do about the sun's explosion.
It's a much to narrow perspective to begin with, there's more to life than a solar explosion. People have to life from day to day as well. His perspective is inadequate and narrow.

>take a Muslim who is against the depiction of images, and insists that the human form should not be represented. To him, nearly all classical painting becomes blasphemy, an afront to the flourshing of god's will.
One would simply ask there whether censoring the human form leads to overall flourishing or whether it doesn't. If it does there's no problem, if it doesn't there is. But at no point is this a subjective issue.

>Do you not agree that this idea of the flourishing of life is much more tricky than you suppose, especially when we don't have biological feedback systems (like vitamins and poisons do)?
We do have biological feedback systems. That is all we are. It is simply the case that some systems are more developed than others.

[faded&elated !!Sz9aYFda0pg No.1638535]

>>1638521
So you don't ask later in the thread or at some other time, I almost always ignore your posts. So yeah.

>>1638508
I'm waiting for your critique. You're not going to get away with one sentence replies if you want to be seen as 'correct'.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638542]

>>1638535
>So you don't ask later in the thread or at some other time, I almost always ignore your posts. So yeah.
No big loss coming from a guy who has to copy paste his arguments from art history books.

[Anonymous No.1638546]

>>1638534
>I do know what makes things flourish the most; which has the most and most correct values which lend themselves to flourishing.

lolno

[Voice of Reason !JM3v.Gaf7k No.1638560]

pint paint paint paint paint paint paint paint paint paint paint paint

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638567]

>>1638546
That was pretty awkward I admit, okay lemme try again:

>what basis do you have to determine what is the best kind of flourishing?
those values with the greatest intensity, for the more power there is in intensity the more value there is in the world. The coherence and multiplicty of a value, which are both necessary for the flourishing of life to a certain extent. There are a few others.

[Anonymous No.1638572]

>>1638535
What's to say? It only takes one look at his art (i.e. Eight Elvises, various consumer products like the soup can or coca-cola) or his films (i.e. some dude sleeping for six hours or a static shot of the Empire State building for eight hours) to know he was poking fun at "art elitists" who really knew nothing, and thus, modern art as a whole. Hell, look at how much that essay writer fawned over the painting; Warhol was making fun of such people, people who saw meaning where there was none, shunning others for it being "2deep4them."

In short, posting a Warhol painting as an example of finding meaning in art is a joke; a joke perpetrated by Andy Warhol himself.

[Anonymous No.1638586]

>>1638534
I've identified it as leading to flourishing because my values are those which are most conducive to life. How could yours possibly be any better? Have you considered the possibility you simply have inferior taste, that you simply don't have the biological composition necessary in order to experience stronger values?

Alright D&E. At this point we no longer need to argue. I'm surprised, and wonder if you are being serious. It should be pretty easy to see that's an ad hominem argument at its worst. Of course I'm argueing for an ad hominem perspective (that of the inherent subjectivity in deciding the goodness of representation). Your ad hominem does something worse, it's leaning towards bigotry and prejudice. I won't argue your ability to decide what is best. We all know what we like best, the trick is figuring out why. Delude yourself and tell yourself that your ideas and tastes are the best ones for everyone. No one will care with that kind of an affront to rational argument and personal respect.

[Anonymous No.1638602]

>>1638572
You fall into the trap as well then. You've located a meaning about Andy Warhol. It's this kind circularism, a kind of recursiviness. The painting is an image of an image of Monroe. Isn't the photo of Monroe also a photo of an image, the ficitious personality of Monroe? Is there anything factual behind that? Who knows.

Warhol is great because of the ways his work became a lens to look at issues of representation and truth. they may seem a little simple today, but compared to the kinds of ideas about representation that were being spit out by generations before him (Abstract Expressionists and Surrealists, who were locating truth in psuedo-psychological models) its a big fucking leap.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1638623]

>>1638586
>It should be pretty easy to see that's an ad hominem argument at its worst
Good, it's meant to be; all arguments can ultimately be traced back to an argument against the man. But anyway, let's put it differently; I am criticisng you on the possibility of your inability to comprehend higher values due to your biological makeup. There is absolutely no difference between this and a trained, muscular weightlifter criticising a fat lazy person (no offence of course) for not being able to lift heavy weights. Is that an ad hominem? He can't lift the weights because he's fat? Of course not, and neither is the argument that you can't comprehend higher values because you don't have the biological makeup to. No big deal either way, nothing ethical follows from this.

>it's leaning towards bigotry and prejudice
Again, the trained weightlifter must be a bigot because he tells the fat lazy guy he can't lift weights. Such prejudice! If anything, your intolerance of my perfectly rational, empirical statements has been rather "bigoted" although I don't use such terms as they are simply ideologial tools by the inferior, same deal with minority and repression.

>Delude yourself and tell yourself that your ideas and tastes are the best ones for everyone
I'm not saying they're the best for everyone, far from it. The values of the strong are worlds apart from the values of the weak after all. What is poison to one man is nourishment to another. What crushes a worm treads on the toes of a man, and so forth.

>No one will care with that kind of an affront to rational argument and personal respect.
I've been rational at every step, as far as respect is concerned, indignation would be a better term. Those of us who are strong have not the slightest concern for personal respect because such a thing for them is always a matter of self-constitution

[faded&elated !!Sz9aYFda0pg No.1638638]

>>1638572
I disagree. I believe Warhol was making a statement about mass production and how that related to art and people (in this case, Monroe, an icon that was 'mass produced' in a sense).

Warhol was generally a pop artist, and this can be described as a pop work. According to wiki (which is cited)

"Pop art challenged tradition by asserting that an artist's use of the mass-produced visual commodities of popular culture is contiguous with the perspective of fine art. Pop removes the material from its context and isolates the object, or combines it with other objects, for contemplation.[1][2] The concept of pop art refers not as much to the art itself as to the attitudes that led to it.[2]"

I think Warhol did disparage art criticism to a degree, but he was certainly making other statements with his pop art. He was taking the reproduced photograph of Monroe and setting it aside in a different environment (an environmental that, as was mentioned, is reminiscent of paintings of Christ and the Virgin Mary - clearly symbolic, Warhol knew what he was doing) for, as the definition says, contemplation.

On a separate note, thanks for articulating your thoughts! I do appreciate it.

[Voice of Reason !JM3v.Gaf7k No.1638643]

>>1638638
andy warhol ruined art by being gay and stupid

[faded&elated !!Sz9aYFda0pg No.1638646]

>>1638602
Good points, I think. And I like the note you end on, as I agree that the conversation is just as important if not more than the interpretations/conclusions.