How can one argue that art is for art's sake when it

How can one argue that this thread is /lit/ - Literature when it clearly isn't?

>>9046727
How can one argue that this a thread when it clearly isn't?

>>9046718
>when it clearly isn't

Elaborate.

>>9046718
Define art

>>9046739
It has a purpose dipshit. The emotions that art elicit inside people in appreciation of its beauty gives it value.

Still mad about the debate huh?

>>9046727
I hate off-topic threads as much as the next autist, but philosophy is /lit/ and aesthetics is a subfield of philosophy.

>>9046748
Your autism is flaring up anon

>>9046754
>All art is pretty useless xD
t. brainlet plebeian

>>9046748
So art can't possibly be for art's sake, simply because art makes you feel like a 12 year old girl on her period?

>>9046751
Philosophy is for /his/. Discussion of texts is for /lit/

>>9046765
>tips fedora

>>9046748
One may argue that the fact that certain types of art resonates with people more than others are purely incidental.
Regardless, you're not giving us any example and your initial critic was somewhat vague to begin with. At this point it just sounds like a vague critic against a hypothetical post-modernist strawman.

Please elaborate.

>>9046788
Are dystopian novels purely for art's sake?

>Still believing all art is useless
Oscar Wilde is and has been irrelevant since the 20th century, fucking plebs.

>>9046824
It depends on the novel. If I have to speculate I'd say that most of them are about entertainment, wich is a valid pursuit.

>>9046861
What about novels like 1984 and Brave New World? Don't they carry a message? Or is it irrelevant because they are bound to subjectivity?

>>9046875
They obviously carry a message, but you're still assuming that having a single, strong, unified message is the best alternative in every case.

Do you think that ALL books should follow these indications? Should this be the norm forever?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (330KB, 1600x1050px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1600x1050px

Christ, the School of Resentment is acting up again.

>>9046888
I'm an idiot on this, but if books like these are written with the deliberate attempt of conveying a purpose, whether of or not the authors' intention, how could it be argued that they are purely for art's sake?

This hasn't been a thing since the 19th century.

>>9046758
get a friend

>>9046946
no u

>>9046889
this

Stop seeing art through the market lense and you will be set free.

>>9046718
How can one argue that it's clear when it clearly isn't?

File: yeah-why-cdbfb151-sz500x388-animate.jpg (58KB, 500x388px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x388px

>>9046718
How can one argue that art is art when it clearly isn't clear that it is, and it clearly isn't clear that it isn't clear that it isn't clear that it is, and it isn't clear that your mom didn't make you do it in the first place, and it isn't clear that she did, and it isn't clear that you didn't like it, and she says that you did, but she could be lying, and it isn't clear that she isn't, but she says that she isn't, but she also says she's a virgin, and it is clear that she isn't, but it isn't clear she's actually your mom, and, if she isn't, then it isn't clear that she isn't a virgin, and it is, and your dad says he's the one behind this, and it isn't clear that he is, but he doesn't seem like he's bluffing, and if he isn't, then who made you do it OP - YOUR MOM OR YOUR DAD!??

CLEARLY

>>9046718
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. What the honest person cannot argue is that all art is for the the same purpose.