DEGENERATE ART

>>2657582
Have you actually read hitler's ideas on art? It's completely retarded white nationalist trash.

>>2657610
t. tumblr

>>2657634
"degenerate" anything was a term made up by a marxist kike, btw

>>2657634
Go back to your containment board >>>/pol/

File: 1466419659059.jpg (107KB, 1200x543px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1200x543px

>>2657642
Seems like it's rather your board, Shlomo

File: a.png (221KB, 426x686px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 426x686px

>>2657642
are you mad silberstein

>>2657634
I'll take that as a no

sage and report

File: American Composer, Kanye West c. 2016.jpg (164KB, 512x733px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 512x733px

Anyone else here hate people who fetishize the culture of old, despise modern day culture -- music, art, etc. --, and attempt to prove that our contemporary culture is objectively shit or stupid or whatever? I do. I'm also beginning to hate people who claim culture is even important -- it's not.

>>yfw you realize there's nothing inherently intellectual or special ...
>about classical music, or any music at all -- apart from the skill it take to play them, which is more or less just hardwork and innate talent;
>about architecture -- the design part, not the part that focuses on ways to build structurally sound buildings;
>about painting, in the age of the camera;
>about the arts -- 'fine' or otherwise -- in general, and that most objective critics are just parading their subjective metrics as objective truth;
>yfw you realize The Arts and culture are just people dicking around; and that art or culture theory, the study of what way the art/culture people are going to dick around next or why the art/culture people dicked around in such a way, like studying lab monkeys, is the only intellectual, semi-objective thing about art and culture
>yfw literal non-sentient robots could do all of these cultural arts we hold in such high regard
>yfw you realize things like sculpting weren't even meant to be considered art -- they were just a very primitive form of photography, 3D models, and things we now have modern tech for

>inb4 "muh symbolisms you missed"

No, I get the symbols, I have an incredible knack for finding what I THINK are symbols and assigning my own, incredibly detailed, spin on these 'symbols.' Ultimately it's a pointless exercise though.

File: IMG-PHOTO-ART--671195800.jpg (331KB, 512x768px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 512x768px

(2/2) Artists are the ones who decide the definitions for their arts' symbols, and usually they're pretty vague in their disclosure of what the symbols mean after the fact, so it's almost like a big, subjective inside-joke that only the artist -- and his influncers, if he had any chance to talk to them, ask for their methods, etc. -- understand.

>inb4"you just don't get it hurr hurr"

Artists who claim their art has objective meaning really just want to bolster their and their fans' egos; but, to be fair, Art can be summed up as artistic self-expression and talent. That's all it is, since there is no objective measure you can use to actually deduce what makes a piece of art great or crap.

Apart from the amount of effort that goes in to making said art, there is no objective difference between a pile of shit that the artist say is meant to "represent the human condition" and, let's say, the Mona Lisa. Keeping this in mind, [spoiler] barring the amount of talent each artist has achieved in playing their music, given no prior knowledge about the motives behind the pieces, there's nothing that should lead you to believe that any of a past artist's works -- say, Beethoven's compositions -- are better than any of a contemporary artist's work -- say, Kanye's compositions. [/spoiler]

Seriously, you can't prove that one artist, or art-form, or culture is better than another unless you're using biased, subjective metrics. Even if artists used MRI scans in an attempt to objectively evoke emotions/meanings to the brains or their audience, we'd still have to factor in multiple variables -- age, genes, biases, etc., etc. -- that would leave us with the same conclusion: art is objectively meaningless. Infact, there's no reason for us to factor in the talent of artists -- classical composers for instance -- when we have ultra precise robots that can do the work of a thousand artists -- including assigning symbolic meanings to works of art -- many times better.

>>2657582
>What makes art academic? Should we allow freedom in art, freedom of expression?

Art theory and studying what influenced certain artistic movements, or learning an artistic craft (how to sculpt realistic statues) are the only real academic thing about the arts.

>freedom in art, freedom of expression
Art is all about subjective expressions.
If you didn't, what would be the point in having art?

>20th century
Post-modernist intellectuals exposed art for it truly was: objectively meaningless. They deconstructed authorship, they embraced our absurdist reality, and they unashamedly admitted that there is no true art.

>identify art

If you say it's art, who am I to disagree? I shouldn't let my biases interfere with your artistic expression.

>audience
Yeah, it can and that's all it can really do. Art is an abstraction that exists in the minds of the artist and his audience.

fuck off /pol/ edgelord

File: 1350482006789.jpg (44KB, 392x500px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 392x500px

>>2658096
>>2658100
>>2658110
You can't use bait that big, no one is going to sit through all that garbage just so they can call you a faggot.

>>2658118
>tl;dr

Applying your subjective metrics to art will never disprove the fact that art is objectively meaningless, tool.

>>2658118
No art can be considered objectively degenerate.
Anything claiming to be art is art.

>>2658132
if anything that claims to be art is art then the term is useless, any word that can be used to describe anything is useless.

>>2658096
>culture is even important -- it's not.
Its important because its one of the most powerful tools to spread ideas.

People say that art and culture are inspired by a muse, when in truth it is the muse herself.

>>2657634

I get what you're trying to say, but Hitler didn't use "degenerate" in the same way you did. By degenerate art, he didn't only mean "campbells in my asshole" art, he meant Jewish, non-german, and communist art. Hitler's criteria would exclude works from Michelangelo or Monet. Hence why the first guy said "white nationalist trash".

>>2658135
Not true, everything that doesn't claim to be art won't be defined as art. That's the prerequisite that must be met -- to define yourself as art.

>>2658137
>powerful
That's debatable.

Art doesn't, as a medium, spread ideas in an efficent manner due to it's subjective nature, that leave interpretation to the artist and his audience -- even in the more concrete forms of artistic expression like film, literature, and creative non-fiction literature (which would can be considered the best form of art since it spreads ideas the most effiecently). Unlike a concrete research paper, it evokes different ideas in different people and thus it is grandly weak and not important as a tool for spreading ideas.

I seriously doubt that anyone in this thread has read Mein Kampf but in the first half, around chapter 10 Hitler goes into great detail about this. He basically said the Jew aims to make everything ugly and obscene. To destroy art, culture and all of our values as Europeans. The only thing they really can create is performance art and its basically an easier way for them to poison the lower minds in society with their filth.

The CIA has admitted to funding degenerate art. Thats not negotiable, neither is the fact that modern art is a degeneration of classical art which requires a higher technical value.

The Jews must use his garbage art to weaken his host country so we aren't strong enough to kick them out.

File: penis-art-ba-5-620x.jpg (48KB, 620x466px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 620x466px

>>2658184
Classical art, like all art, is objectively without meaning and not any 'purer' than contemporary art. Now, If technical skills are the metric in which you use to rank classical art above contemporary art, than great art is at the mercy of the highly skilled -- regardless of whether they subscribe to classical or modern ideals.

Using your metric, it would be fair to say that anything created by a non-sentient robots, that are far superior to humans in terms of technical ability, is the peak of art -- no matter how disagreeable it is with your dated ideals. If technical skills are all it takes, art of a phallus or human excrement, meticulously carved by men who spent their entire lives honing their technical skills, would make classical art look like degeneration by comparison -- it would be far above classical art in measures of technical value.

Talent and technical ability aren't traits that subscribe to your reactionary ideals. Perhaps, you could craft a semi-convincing argument by substituting 'technical values' with ethno-traditional values or a more abstract concept, tinfoil anon.

>>2658242
>tripfag

kek, die in a fire

>>2658184
>>>/pol/
There's a reason you have a containment board. I've read Hitler's views on art btw. Like his views on most everything, it's propaganda from a warped mind, completely without merit.

>>2658242

Why do you verbosely state that technical skills don't matter? It just muddles your main point.

>>2658272
I gave you two examples to consider. One helps to illustrate that art can be jewish, contemporary, and vulgur while still not meeting your criteria for art that isn't degenration. The other one helps to illustrate that, while technical skills may have held some value in previous times, technical skills don't hold any value in modern times.

>>2658184
The Nazis used expressionist art in their propaganda. As much bullshit as Hitler talked about modern Jewish whatever the Third Reich used modern art when it suited them and clearly couldn't deny its appeal.

>>2658242
>Classical art, like all art, is objectively without meaning
>objectively without meaning
explain urself
does anything have objective meaning?