please help a brainlet

It's not. Pater is a faggot. Go read something else.

>>9339038
like what

>what is abstract art and poetry

>>9339030
>smartest board

>>9339052
Lacan.

>>9339134
particularly what books

lacan's field is general and too obfuscated

File: 1487505645557.jpg (37KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 657x527px

>>9339030
>Smartest board
No such thing as a 'smart' board.

Welcome to /lit/ The Shithole of the Pseuds!!

>>9339030
>how is the inseparability of subject matter and form only achieved solely by music

It's not, this was written over 100 years ago.

>>9339486
i put that just to flatter you and it's not the point of this thread

>>9339491
are there any books that would let me understand more about matter and form?

thanks in advance

>>9339497
In general I'm not sure but you could read Clement Greenberg's writing on formalism in painting, like Towards a Newer Laocoon. Formalism is outdated too but it's still interesting to read.

>>9339030
I think Arthur C. Danto's The Artworld is exactly what you're looking for.

Bump for essays on aesthetics.

>>9339574
Thanks

although I appreciate more essays for concise introduction, patrician world won't wait for a pleb like me

>>9340155
It is an essay

See the very readable Introduction to Hegel's book on Aesthetics (the Lectures on) placing Poetry above Music, when grading the arts. Also note the word 'condition' in the passage quoted above-- does it not also suggest the idea of Limitation? You can probably find a very concise breakdown of Hegel's position on the web: He also considers Architecture, Sculpture, and Painting. Pater, by the way, is a subtle impressionist, if very capable critic. Quite difficult to use as an arguable basis for any position that isn't already his own.

>>9341573
How is poetry an inessential sensuous medium? What is hegels deal with poetry striving to become philosophy

>>9339030
/q/, /diy/, and /sci/ are all smarter than /lit/

I image this refers mainly to what makes music music. That being, of course, not the lyrics or rhythm or melody but the simple conveyed sound as itself.

So what I imagine he is talking about is the simple fact that one musical note conveys only itself. What we call that note is applied later, so it doesn't tell anything about itself other than its sound.

While we can separate the words of a poem from what it tries to convey and how a painting looks from the patterns we see with our developed eyesight, we can't do that as easily with music.

There is no chord for "sadness," but there are colors that are naturally associated with it and word imagery that can also convey it.

A chord in the end describes only itself.

I don't know the truthfulness of what I just typed, but that is what I gather from the passage.