can something abstract ever be good? doubt it

>>8370415
you're a fucking idiot, what about broadway boogie woogie.

>>8370418
good point, maybe conceptual was a better word

>>8370421
>>8370418
>>8370415
same

File: fegggger.png (4KB, 340x126px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 340x126px

>>8370424
meta
mods delete this thread

Here's a few nice examples

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5P5vkegmvU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpF5RJgaHwA

Can't really come up with good examples in literature on the fly, except maybe Burroughs and some strands of poetry.

>>8370433
All literature is abstract

>>8370475
If you want to get down to it, yes - but does all literature recognize, implement and play with the notion of its abstractness? does it strive to elude the conventions of mimesis that are, mostly, the basis for any narrative?

Nah. Very few do.

>>8370506
broadway boogie woogie clearly represents new york, it is still an abstraction. Maybe authors might not be deal with abstract subject matter but literature is still abstract. Why on earth, then, did I post this on a literature forum?

music is abstract, isn't it?

>>8370592
Typically thought of as such but I'd say no. Wind is not asbtract, so why would a woodwind instrument be abstract. Breathing isn't abstract. Music is vibration and vibrations provoke meaning whether you 'understand' their 'symbolism' or not.

>>8370590
You're talking about the inherent/essential "fakeness" of art, its inability to be exactly that which it portrays - the map/territory duality. Art is, always, a lie: that is a given, and your argument is right.

Still, we're talking about abstraction on a more theoretical way, inside the conventions of art making - which are, for most Western literature or art, the conventions of mimesis, of the imitation of reality. Abstract art is, even etimologically, something that removes itself (or strives to remove itself, many works don't accomplish it) from any inherent comparison with reality, the traditional object of representation. Yes, it's as abstract as realistic art in the plane of reality (even if an argument could be made for art to exist as itself in reality, then being real-for-iself instead of being just a lie-for-something-else, kind of like a verbal lie is still, psitively, a statement), but in the plane of art they are fundamentally different.

>>8370592
It has considered the purest form of art for a lot of time in Western thought (see: Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kandinskij) because of its being non-representative of something, yes.

>>8370606

If you're expanding the definition like that, then surely abstract painting and film don't count because they use color and form and they provoke meaning whether you 'understand' their 'symbolism' or not?

>>8370611
He's just stupid and incapable of recognizing his own biases

>>8370611
That is a good point. I didn't think of that. I guess its all up in the air and entirely boring

>>8370609
>any inherent comparison with reality

to form its own reality. i don't know if that contradicts your point though

>>8370678
Well yeah, you're right. I don't think it's controversial to say that any artistic (and many that aren't) work is an act of reality-creation, and abstract art follows the same principle. My point was, rather, that their abstractness lies in the fact that their own reality exists without the need for it to be compared to "our" reality - it is autonomous, in- and for-itself.

I'll add that I can't really think of purely abstract art, as in, managing to completely throw out reality. There's always the artist, our senses, etc. One of the great challenges of art today is, I think, finally representing the a-humanx the radical Other with its reality barely (or not at all) touching ours.