Is it true that the Romantics of the early 19th century were

>>3078162
It was a counter-culture that broke with the Enlightenment's idea of the rationality of nature and human beings. The movement sought to describe the spirit and/or soul in nature, things and humanity. However to think the romantic era of art and litterature was of a solely religious character is wrong, since soul and spirit were seen as things inherent and intrinsic to objects independent of religion and God. These phenomenes were merely to be interpreted and described by the artistic genius. The mood and the feeling of the art is therefore paramount in the art of the period.

The idea of artistic genius stems from this period. People believed that the true artist was capable and willing to tap into a higher world of ideas, almost and sometimes in a platonic way (universalism and neoplationism), in short they could see the truth behind the veil, the truth of course being the spirit and soul of an object or an event; a sort of mystic almost. As you see this is highly in contrast with the enlightenment, where focus is placed on the mind to peak through the veil by force of reason alone and not feeling.

>>3078162
And as such it is opposed to clergy because it places focus on the personel experience of things. I.E. not having ministers telling you what's right and wrong.

>>3078162
They were the anti-anti SJW's of their day (counter counterculture). If they were alive today they would probably be radical centrists posting about the horse shoe theory.

File: UH62c6M.png (72KB, 781x576px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 781x576px

>>3078949

File: chapo-trap-house-fb.png (876KB, 1200x650px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 1200x650px

>>3078949
Nah they were like the dirtbag left of the Napoleonic era