Aesthetics

Nabby had some very strange opinions

The ancient Greeks believed beautiful people were better than ugly people, perhaps one can say the same for those with a more attuned aesthetic sense.

>>9781396
You aren't wrong, but I kind of agree with him here. That being said, I'm also slightly pretentious, condescending and have difficulty making new friends.

File: softa.png (332KB, 540x600px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 540x600px

>>9781389
I like ugly things. I'm a big fan of unironic ironic aesthetics. But it can't be UGLY ugly. I don't know how to describe it. Like- aesthetics that are a parody, but still show aesthetic competence. Like, the person is making a parody, but clearly has extensive knowledge of the medium, so what they make still has merit of it's own. Is there a word for that?

>>9781405
While true, that's kind of a loaded statement. The Greek ideal of masculine beauty was musculature - they didn't really care about phenotypical traits like hair or eyes, at least in men. So while it is true that beautiful people were regarded as flat out superior, to a degree this was because they worked for their beauty.

So, to redefine the example, it could be said that those who work towards achieving aesthetic taste are "better people" in some way. Which would seem to hold up, since pursuit of aesthetic knowledge would entail intellectual and philosophical pursuits.

>>9781408
>>9781415
deleting to make a change that small is pretty pretentious desu senpai

>>9781419
Vaporwave. You're just describing vaporwave.

>>9781424
why was socrates made fun of for his nose then

>>9781424
>The Greek ideal of masculine beauty was musculature - they didn't really care about phenotypical traits like hair or eyes, at least in men.
That's not true though. Achilles' reddish-blonde hair is described admiringly in the Iliad as part of what makes him so beautiful/excellent. Also, you're leaving out facial structure which is at least as important in determining how beautiful men are as the musculature of the body.

>>9781419
Ironically liking those things is different, though. That's why I used "unironically" in the OP.
>>9781425
Fugg I was hoping no one would notice. I couldn't help myself, I hate typos.

>>9781428
Well, yeah, but not just vaporwave. I can go down this huge fucking list.

Like, Detective Heart of America- it's fucking weird, and it's stupid, but you can tell that the people making it have experiance in movie making. The way the scenes are set up, the way the characters move in the scene- even the hands moving the characters in the scene. It's not good- but I genuinely like it because it's bad, but made well.

Then you have movies like Death Proof. Tarantino is a great example. Death Proof is super cheesy but that's the point.

It's- it's bad things, but they're used intentionally and stylistically, which I fucking adore. It's also something unique to movies I think. You can't stylistically implement cliches in literature... well, people try, but usually they're very obnoxious. I'm sure there's a few, but subverting the cliche is hard, I think, when you can't... show it? I'm not sure if that's true, but I can't think of books where that's the case. You have other things, like say, Palahniuk, but that doesn't work with cliches, so much as he's just experimenting with gimmicks, which I like, but it's something different.

>>9781458
but I don't ironically like it- I unironically like it because it looks like it's ironic.

>>9781466
You unironically enjoying it doesn't change the ironic nature of the art form. There's beauty in kitsch, but it usually comes from an ironic standpoint. The examples you have described are just appropriating and commenting on cultural artifacts and thematic elements considered in poor taste for an entirely new work of art, viewed and judged in a different regard.

>>9781501
Yes, that's true, but liking something ironic doesn't mean I'm liking it ironically. Also, I think that some things "mimic" ironic artforms, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're ironic themselves. Although if we consider it a spectrum, then finding that point is basically impossible. Like, Death Proof and Planet Terror are good examples. On opposite sides of the slider- You have Death Proof which is using old cliches in a way that makes the movie artistically viable, despite the exaggerations because of how well and specifically they were implemented. Planet Terror on the other hand is similar in that it uses old cliches stylistically, but it turns that around and just... runs with it. It overexaggerates to the point of parody. So it is meant to be ironic, I think. Am I making sense?

>>9781389
It's not that bad taste leads to being a bad person, it's that bad taste indicates a low-level of social and cultural awareness that means that you're already shit.

>>9781389
>I remember my aesthetics professor telling me that nabokov was a firm believer in something along those lines.

Nabokov grad student here, short answer:

Yes

>>9781610
>Nabokov grad student
Hope you're not paying for that clown college degree.

>I remember my aesthetics professor telling me that nabokov was a firm believer in something along those lines.
remember the scene in lolita when HH first meets the nymphet and walks into the shabby middle class home full of tasteless bric-a-brac?

the tasteless middle-class is explored through the vehicle of a true outsider in the book. literally a pedo frenchman in 1950s america who is much smarter than anybody else in the novel.

>>9781610
Is there a text in which he concretely states this or is it just implied through his works?