Kubrick: "Art is not subjective"

He's right though.

>>83052180
He's objectively wrong

File: 1486153526718.jpg (52KB, 599x827px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 599x827px

>>83052156
>>83052290
>brainlets show up
Of course Kubrick is right. Nothing is (actually) subjective, or actually random for that matter. Science is and will continue to quantify EVERYTHING in the universe.

>>83052697
science shows that everything is subjective though, nothing has a fixed location coordinate, it's just temporary interaction between various wave functions (all fundamental forces are waves with force particle carriers, this was what the higgs boson hype was about, it's the gravity particle) collapsing when you measure them, but if left unchecked they go on their merry way without any rhyme or reason.

in fact, all modern science of the 20th and 21st century has shown us theoretically, then experimentally that every single thing in this universe is relative to something else.

moons to planets to suns to galaxies to clusters to super clusters to super-structures to expansion and reality. and tracing all that backwards in time to the creation of this chain of events out of a single point of nothing. out of nothing, nothing is the only meaning ascribed to reality, everything is in constant motion including constants themselves and base reality is just your temporary experience which is often changing itself.

Postmodernists btfo

The one, true /our guy/

File: 1479131897103.jpg (24KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x480px

>>83052697
>Nothing is (actually) subjective

File: 1480685608082.jpg (57KB, 1024x626px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1024x626px

>>83052156

IMOGANE MAI SHOCK
PEEPLE, DON'T THINK THAT CONSERVATISM IS THE NEW COUNTA CULTURA

>>83052960
since reality is nothing he is technically correct. his sentence amounts to nothing is everything is subjective. it's a meaningless tautology. like saying blue is blue.

>>83052865
>science shows that everything is subjective though, nothing has a fixed location coordinate
No, stupid. That's not what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says.

>>83052960
>no argument to be found
>unironically thinking that in another million years of scientific progress we'll never be able to know why certain movies suck

Why do so many intellectually lazy idiots come here to discuss film when they don't even think it can be judged? lol

>>83052290
>"MUH EVERYONE'S OPINION IS EQUALLY VALID"
No.
Your subjective opinion is objectively shit.

is there anything more unintentionally hilarious than relativists/subjectivists?

>>83052865
>quantum physics and kubrick both use the word “subjective“, so it means the word and can be applied to the field of physics and arts
Stop argueing with quantum physics if you know about it on a popular science level

Art itself can't be subjective you literal brainlets because subjectiveness implies a person.
Only someone's perspective on that artform is ofcourse subjective.

Some people unironically like music from David Guetta, that's their subjective opinion.
I can make a whole essay how fucking generic and repetitive his songs are but that doesn't change the fact that they genuinely like it.
Therefore all perspectives on any artform are completely subjective.

File: trump middle finger.jpg (94KB, 635x600px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 635x600px

>>83052180
Indeed, he's bang on

>>83052156
>>83052290
No he's spot on.

Different types of people have different opinions, yes. But there is still an objective reality to what constitutes good art (art that is popular, since that is quite literally the only measure of whether art is good or not).

And now you will say "no popularity doesn't equal worth, what about Justin Bieber"

Actually you're wrong. Popularity does equal worth. You and your contrarian pretentious buddies might have a hard-on for some obscure French film and give a bunch of reasons why you think it's "better" than a Hollywood blockbuster, but again, if there are a bunch of you who think this French film is good, then popularity is again an indicator of that film's worth. As I said, different types of people have different tastes. Men have different tastes to women (there's diversity within both groups, but in general, men and women skew towards different things, because we have very different levels of hormones, due to our genitalia - men produce 20x more testosterone than women because we have testicles).

I mean, let's say you found an obscure French film that you thought was amazing, the height of kino, but even pretentious film critics hated it. Literally nobody else in the world liked it, apart from you, and you think it is the best thing ever, and you think you can explain *why* it's so good. Then is that movie good? Why? If it's not popular then it's not good, in my opinion. "Good" means that something has gained approval from people. Popularity is approval.

You might be able to define things you think are objective measures of the worth of a movie (its pacing, its scriptwriting, whatever). Well I guess these are the standards humans have defined for "movies", but those standards change over time. And all these standards are only verified by our approval. Our approval is the only thing that matters. Any other standard is subservient to the over-arching standard: approval.

>>83053233
You're halfway there, here's the rest:

When you like or not like something, this is a true subjective opinion and can never be right or wrong. You're simply saying 'I like this thing.'

But when you say something is good or bad, you're making an objective statement about the quality of that thing. This requires reasons why. Those reasons can be good or bad, logical or illogical, and can be superior or inferior to other arguments, and thus more valid.

>>83052865
>science shows that everything is subjective though, nothing has a fixed location coordinate

So you don't believe that there's some objective reality that we are all observing?

Okay so if I get a gun and hold it to your head then you won't be afraid if I shoot you, right? Because it's just subjective bro, there's no objective reality, who's to say that a bullet to your head will kill you? That's just subjective bro, SCIENCE SAYS SO

>>83053275
>trump pic

didn't read

>>83053275
>art that is popular, since that is quite literally the only measure of whether art is good or not).
Stopped reading here. Art (like everything) is objective though. At least you started from the right place.

>>83052697
but godel showed in the 1930s that not even mathematics was objective.

really the only objectivity you have left is in a self-contradicting God, which most people have abandoned because it's not required to do business and all human beings are just business machines selling and buying services and resources. the market is the only arbiter you need realistically.

>>83053083
what? i have a phd in physics, which science are you invoking to show determinism or objectivity or the lack of randomness? there isn't a single person alive today being published in peer review journals that even bothers arguing for any of those concepts, they were abandoned 70+ years ago when it was proven that humans are incapable of creating anything that cannot later be improved upon.


i realise im talking to a kid with a barely functioning brain and googlefacts as a memory base, but re-read what i wrote.

NOBODY, NO SINGLE PERSON, WITH AN EDUCATION, THINKS OBJECTIVITY, DETERMINISM OR (UN)RANDOMNESS EXISTS IN THE NATURAL WORLD OR IS THEORETICALLY CONSISTENT IN AN IMAGINARY WORLD.


this is why ayn rand is such a fun historical character to troll conservatives with, because all of her theories are bullshit and the market forces decide everything for the individual.

eg the individual is subject to market forces and acts accordingly (something rationally, somethings irrationally depending on complex circumstances which can be modelled with wave functions perturbations on big data structures which collect as much information as possible).

these market forces could be almost anything that happens, predicting or accounting for them ahead of time is a running gag in our group, where we are basically paid to look into the future for wall street banks who have given up on their own theories of economics and need physical models to tell them when to buy and sell and how to avoid risk. it's just a game.

>>83053208
*means the same thing

>>83053083
>nothing is subjective
>let's discuss

>>83053275
So capeshit, Justin Bieber and fidget spinners are the pinnacle of human artform huh?

>>83052865
>this was what the higgs boson hype was about, it's the gravity particle
Wut. Read about electroweak symmetry breaking brainlet.

Kubrick also said "Hitler was right about almost everything", so there must have been some level of insecurity or self-loathing in his mind.

>>83053323
wrong

>>83053323
>really the only objectivity you have left is in a self-contradicting God

;-)

>>83053233
>if something is generic it is bad
You are a contrarian, it's okay though, it's probably because you don't have any friends

>Therefore all perspectives on any artform are completely subjective.
That's objectively wrong.

Different types of people have different opinions on art - people enjoy art that reflects them. So a guy who's into cars will like car movies. A young girl will like Frozen and other Disney stuff. A young girl might also like Justin Bieber because he's a "heartthrob" or something. Many guys like movies about action men, or heroes, or spies (e.g. James Bond, Bruce Willis in Die Hard movies, etc.) because they all embody a figure who leads an exciting life and gets lots of women, and most men want that.

So yes, different people have different perspectives.

But there is still an objective reality which underpins these perspectives. As I said, age is a factor that will influence your interests, biological sex as well (males have testicles, which produce testosterone, which is why we produce 20x the testosterone that women do, and testosterone has lots of effects, psychological and physiological).

So it's not all subjective.

>>83053390
Most people that like those things don't consider them the pinnacle of human artform.

If you only asked people who are educated on the subject you'll still only have a popularity contest.

>>83053342
>let's discuss
Via use of objective logic. Problem? see >>83053293

>>83053323
>but godel showed in the 1930s that not even mathematics was objective.
I'm actually lol'd now. see >>83053208

>what? i have a phd in physics
From Bill Nye 'University'?

>NOBODY, NO SINGLE PERSON, WITH AN EDUCATION, THINKS OBJECTIVITY, DETERMINISM OR (UN)RANDOMNESS EXISTS IN THE NATURAL WORLD
Again, stupid. You have show a woeful lack of understanding of quantum physics or the Heisenberg U.P.

>these market forces could be almost anything that happens, predicting or accounting for them ahead of time is a running gag
You're addressing our ability to measure and perceive those variables, not that they're actually random.

>>83053410
But this is also (objectively) true. Don't project your own self-hate onto Kubrick, bro.

>>83053525
>>83053275
>popularity = quality
These might be the dumbest posts in this whole thread, which is saying something.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

File: picasso the hack.png (617KB, 1000x533px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 1000x533px

>>83052156
>>I think modern art's almost total preoccupation with subjectivism has led to anarchy and sterility in the arts

Kubrick hit the nail on the head.
Reminder that Picasso and the like's push for the 'modern art' trend was a deliberate use of incompetence in order to degrade the sense of quality and measurable effort in the art world as an act of socio-political warfare.

>>83053410
kek, he wasnt wrong

hitler was a man who failed his goals

File: trump 2.jpg (47KB, 1067x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1067x600px

>>83053319
>Snowflakes get triggered just by the presence of a Trump image
Boy oh boy oh boy.

>>83053321
Explain how I'm wrong - you can't. The only objective measure of whether art is good or not is its popularity. All other standards (conformance to certain principles, which are ultimately rooted in biological facts about us) are "real" (they are rooted in a biological reality), but they are all REDUCIBLE to "approval".

For example. A piece of art that says something profound about sex could get popular. If it's a piece of art about something very obscure (I dunno, let's say a bicycle brake caliper. Just a painting of that) without having a wider meaning, then it's unlikely to get mass popularity. Because it doesn't appeal to as many people. So you could say that's a principle of "good art" right there - art that speaks to lots of people. Or perhaps, in the case of a painting, the quality of the painting (the skill of the artist) is something you think is a principle of good art.

People will just argue over these at length though, because different people value different things from their art (bicycle fans are more likely to like art about bicycles. Men are more likely to like certain types of art because we're biologically different to women. Etc.)

In my opinion the only truly objective measure of whether art is good or not is approval. All other standards that we come up with are just reducible to approval. Why is the Mona Lisa considered great art? Again we could say there are principles at work (like the principle I mentioned, that great art should have mass appeal). But again that's just the same thing as saying "good art is art that has mass approval", is it not?

Any standard that you try and come up with doesn't really matter, only approval does. Because your standard might only be valued by a small proportion of the population. And then why are your standards objectively better than those of a bigger section of the population? They're not.

>>83052156

Art is not objective. That makes no sense.

>>83053650
>popularity = quality
Never said or implied that. Maybe if you stopped insulting people and was interested in having a discussion you wouldn't blind yourself. It seems like you're more interested in being right and superior.

>>83052156

>DONT HAVE OPINIONS
>REEEE

>>83053275
>Popularity does equal worth.

No. Popularity indicates popularity. Popularity can certainly lead to more money though, and someone may argue money equals worth.

>If it's not popular then it's not good, in my opinion. "Good" means that something has gained approval from people. Popularity is approval.

That's a logical fallacy, appeal to popularity, argumentum ad numeram.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal-to-Popularity
>This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
>In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
>Argumentum ad populum ("argument to the people") is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is considered to be true or good solely because it is popular. Undoubtedly many popular notions are true, but their truth is not a function of their popularity, except in circumstances where other factors ensure that popularity correlates with truth. The fallacy is the opposite of an appeal to the minority.

>The fallacy is an appeal to authority and a conditional fallacy.

>>83053824
>those links
we got a pseud

File: 1335173251387.jpg (215KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1000x1000px

>>83053725
>mfw they still tell students in schools to worship this communist

>>83053390
This guy summed it up better than I could: >>83053525

>If you only asked people who are educated on the subject you'll still only have a popularity contest.

Another point to make might be, will Justin Bieber still be popular in 100 years time? If he has enduring appeal, then he probably would be considered one of the most artistically important artists of humanity. Hell, look at Michael Jackson, he has had long-lasting appeal already, and mass appeal too. Or Elvis Presley. Why are they considered good artists? Ultimately, mass appeal.

Remember, there are lots of people that hate Bieber. So that obviously discounts against the claim that Bieber is one of the best forms of art. Instead it is the things more popular than him which we would call the best forms of art. Shakespeare, Dickens, Mozart, whatever - but again it's popularity isn't it.

But if you think there are other objective principles that define good art then please tell me what they are (and I'll tell you why they're all reducible to just approval from humans).

>>83053650
>i don't have an argument so i'll call you dumb

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

>>83053759
The majority of top directors working today absolutely love Robert Bresson and are big fans of his work but he never was as half as famous as them.

So is Bresson actually shit because most people don't know about him?

>>83053323
where did you get your phd from? the higgs boson is not the gravity particle. the graviton is, which is a hypothetical particle.

>>83053764
Yes it is

>>83053824
See the end of this because I don't want to explain to you why you're wrong twice: >>83053891

>>83053323
>NOBODY, NO SINGLE PERSON, WITH AN EDUCATION, THINKS OBJECTIVITY, DETERMINISM OR (UN)RANDOMNESS EXISTS IN THE NATURAL WORLD OR IS THEORETICALLY CONSISTENT IN AN IMAGINARY WORLD.

Do you think gravity and other laws of physics are merely subjective?

Is the "market" related to gravity in any way?

>>83053919

It literally isn't. There is no arguement. You can't tell me what you think is art and vice versa.

Just because you wanna play mental gymnastics to try to prove it because Kubrick said it, doesn't make it true.

>>83053080
>since reality is nothing

Oh fuck you. You can't just make up large premises and act as if that's already the case.

Had to stop reading the rest of your post before it gives me cancer.

>>83053894
>he is popular with directors
You are literally proving my point

>>83053323
>which science are you invoking to show determinism or objectivity or the lack of randomness
how does this in any way relate to the topic we're debating? this isnt about fucking determinism you're trying too hard mister pee age dee

>the fact that randomness exists in the world means me shitting on a canvas is art
pls neck urself kiddo

>>83053952
What is art is what lots of people consider to be art. That's the only measure there is.

>>83053983

No it isn't.

The measure is what you can personally think but you can't force those views on others. Its as simple as that.

>>83053323
>but godel showed in the 1930s that not even mathematics was objective.
No, he showed that it was internally inconsistent, which is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER IT REFLECTS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY, YOU FUCKING MORON

>>83053891
>Shakespeare, Dickens, Mozart, whatever - but again it's popularity isn't it.

But their "approval" and popularity widely varies depending in which time period you live in.
2001 wasn't approved or popular upon release and now it's considered as one of the greatest films ever made. Maybe in a hundred years from now it will be considered as shit again.
Basing the quality of art on the overall "approval" of people is absurd and retarded.

>>83053275

>Walmart products have the best quality since they sell the most.

>>83053983
>lots of people
No, one guy can decrete something as art if he wishes so.

>>83053759
>Any standard that you try and come up with doesn't really matter, only approval does. Because your standard might only be valued by a small proportion of the population. And then why are your standards objectively better than those of a bigger section of the population? They're not.

Not that guy, but see >>83053650
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

Do you really think Mona Lisa is considered "great art" because it's popular? You don't think the realism of the painting has anything to do with it? And I think you've put the cart before the horse. The Mona Lisa is popular because it's considered great art. People are told it's great art, the popularity came after.

>>83052156
Funny because most people would put Kubrick's films as "modern art" too

>>83054038
Name some great pieces of art that are considered shit, even by people and critics in that medium.

>>83054019
There are objective reasons why lots of people consider the Mona Lisa to be "art".

You can spend your entire life saying the Mona Lisa isn't art, but that doesn't change the fact that most people in the world (well, in the Western world at least) consider it to be art.

I agree with you that different people have different perspectives, but let's look at what Kubrick said again:

>The notion that reality exists only in the artist's mind

That's what I (and he) disagree with. Because reality actually exists out there in the world. And there are objective reasons why lots of people consider the Mona Lisa to be art. For example, she is an attractive woman. Men like looking at attractive women, for biological reasons. But she is also modestly dressed - perhaps this means that female admirers of the painting think she is a role model of some sort, or at least, they identify with her.

So the idea of "art" is absolutely grounded in an objective reality.

I keep seeing the same follies time and time again. Art is objective, in that we can qualify what art is via family-resemblances.

However, when people say "art," it's largely them STUPIDLY thinking "art" is a quality of material and not a categorization of material, i.e. "This movie is art [good]."

Art is not inherently-good -- it's not inherently-bad, either. Good art is art; bad art is art; mediocre art is art. Art is art is art is art.

A good movie is a movie just as a bad movie is, yes, still a movie.

Over and over, time and time again, people KEEP using art to mean "good" or "great" -- or other synonyms.

Stop doing this.

>>83053764

Art includes objective things, artifacts, man-made objects. What is considered art and not art is often subjective ("that is art", "that is not art").

I do think that quantum physics led to post-modernism which led to the destruction of boundaries over what art "is." If Kubrick said "I think modern art's almost total preoccupation with subjectivism has led to anarchy", I think he's right. Suddenly some liberal fruitcake will call shit in a bowl "art." That kind of relativism probably also explains so much of the magical thinking of liberals in universities, cultural relativism, "tolerance", even acceptance of "transgenderism."

>All spheres of life (e.g., the economic, the political, the sexual, the artistic, etc.) have imploded into one another, allowing art to become commonplace and universal (Baudrillard, 1993). Because art has become part of everyday life, it is no longer transcendental and nothing can be said about it. This is where Baudrillard develops the term “transaesthetics.” Like Baudrillard's other terms (e.g., “transsexual,” “transeconomic,” “transgender,” etc.), “transaesthetics” implies that art has lost its “specificity” and can no longer reference anything. There is no longer any “meaning” in art because life itself has lost the “meaning” art used to reference. In the age of the image, critique is impossible. As Postman (2006) argues, “One can like or dislike a television commercial, of course. But one cannot refute it” (p. 128).

>>83053845

I'm informing anon what argumentum ad populum is, since apparently he doesn't know.

The guy thinks popularity = worth, which is a fallacy.

>>83054038
>>83054053
>Basing the quality of art on the overall "approval" of people is absurd and retarded.
>Do you really think Mona Lisa is considered "great art" because it's popular?
It's the only objective measure there is.

>You don't think the realism of the painting has anything to do with it?
There are principles we can identify, yes. But ultimately these principles just reduce to approval. The Mona Lisa is perhaps popular because it is an attractive woman, and men like looking at attractive women. And it's also a modestly dressed woman, and maybe women think that's a good depiction of women. So there are, absolutely, objective factors at play - grounded in the objective reality of our biology. Our biology, ultimately, explains what we consider to be good art or not.

"Approval" is just another way of saying this.

>>83054046
Yup they're the best at what they do (marketing, price, good enough quality), that's why they sell the most. If they weren't the best in all those areas, then people would go elsewhere

This is one retarded ass thread.

>>83053891
>Why are they considered good artists? Ultimately, mass appeal.

I think you're leaving out their actual work they produce.

If Justin Bieber made no music, but was still popular, does that make him a good artist? You're also leaving out, what is it about some work that makes it popular?

As for Shakespeare, I don't think many people independently conclude in a vacuum that Shakespeare made great art, they are told by older people that Shakespeare made great art.

>>83054292
>Our biology, ultimately, explains what we consider to be good art or not.

I'm pretty sure most twins have different tastes and opinions, especially if they are not living together.

>>83053275

I think quality is more than a function of popularity. My own view is that it's a trifecta:
1. Popularity - does the mass population consume the art?
2. Longevity - are people still consuming this art years and years after it's made?
3. Critical acclaim - a bit harder to quantify, but generally "is this art valued by people who know what they're talking about?". Another way of thinking about it would be "can you explain why this thing you like is good?". Art with substance gains critical acclaim, transient vacuous stuff doesn't.

Hence justin bieber isn't a good artist, as he doesn't meet 3 and almost certainly won't meet 2.

Someone like Beethoven meets 2 and 3, and more modern music like michael jackson certainly meets 1 and 2.

>>83054033

thank you. beat me to it.

>>83053919

I didn't make an ad hominem attack.

I said that the argument that "popularity equals worth" is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum.

And in the case of Shakespeare, Mozart, Dickens, they are first recognized as producers of great art, and the popularity comes later (and even then, only among "classically" minded individuals).

>>83053955

I think you're leaving out all sense of percentages. Popularity is also relative.

If someone is only "popular with directors", then they are unpopular with everyone else. And how many directors are we talking about?

File: serveimage-26.jpg (14KB, 368x294px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 368x294px

>This thread

How can you post ITT when you haven't cleaned up your bloody room yet?

>>83054292
>Yup they're the best at what they do (marketing, price, good enough quality), that's why they sell the most. If they weren't the best in all those areas, then people would go elsewhere

Jesus, you're so caught up in trying to be right that you're dismissing basic truths. Accessibility does not mean quality and people don't often go to other stores because they value their savings over the quality of products they are purchasing.

>>83053983

Maybe within subjectivism and post-modernism.

art:
"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the senses and emotions"
"Skillful creative activity, usually with an aesthetic focus"
"Aesthetic value"
"Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation"
synonym:craft

File: fpepe.png (203KB, 495x495px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 495x495px

Prove that art is objective without appealing to a transcendental a priori established truth.

>>83054033
axiomatic incompleteness leads to subjective and relative world views.

can objectivity be internally inconsistent? well everything else is. so objectivity cannot exist.

>"This sentence is a lie."

many possible ways to construct statements with no objective value. So how can reality be objective if you can show "objectively subjective" statements of fact. Objectively subjective things are just subjective, and therefore objective things are subjective, with some self-imposed restriction on degrees of freedom.

the burden lies on you to show that anything objective as you define it exists, this would then be a refutation of godel's work and a reinterpretation of all modern mathematics and physics.

gonna be waiting on your nobel prize winning reply.

>>83054615
I like how you snuck "aesthetic value" in there.

It's completely out-of-place and shouldn't be used.

Maybe if you were elucidating how one describes art, but art, itself, doesn't need any aesthetic value. It could have zero "aesthetic value" and still be art.

File: tv_4chan_archive_kubrick_enter_the_void.jpg (37KB, 1015x196px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1015x196px

Hey, remember when you liked Kubrick?

File: 1373137486730.gif (1MB, 212x238px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 212x238px

what are you saying goyim, we need to deconstruct absolutely every aspect of your civilizations, only after the total destruction of western culture and aesthetic a perfect global utopia can arise.
trust me, everything is subjective when it comes to western values, now, brown muslims invaders are objetively good for your country, deal with it.

>>83054292
>It's the only objective measure there is.

No, approval is not "the only objective measure there is." And isn't approval a subjective measure anyway?

If the "Mona Lisa" was pus that was removed from Da Vinci, is it "great art"? No, since standards exist on what is art or not. You might say it isn't great art because it has no approval, while ignoring that it's not a piece of artwork to begin with.

>There are principles we can identify, yes. But ultimately these principles just reduce to approval.

Maybe aesthetics reduces to approval, but art means something made with skillful creative activity. Like another anon said, art is a category, but people also seem to use it as a value judgement of quality.

As for markets, many people can't afford the best quality of goods, which are often not mass-produced anyway. Which reminds me of how a painting by Mark Rothko might sell for $82 million, but a postcard version might sell for mere dollars.

When people look at the "art" made by Mark Rothko, that's what makes them wonder why it would sell for so much, since their child could make the same thing. But the Rothko painting doesn't merely have use value and exchange value, but also sign value (the status that having the thing grants the owner).

Jean Baudrillard:
>Theoretically the exchange value of an object is supposed to be derived from its use value. In actuality the use value and exchange value of an object are split into a dichotomous relationship that requires an artificial scale to establish a system of value and equivalence

>It is not the fact that cultural goods become a market and a marketable product, that is dangerous, it is not the fact that aesthetic values become an exchange value or a speculative value, that is pernicious. What is dangerous, we might say, is the fact that economic values, market values, prices, money, speculation, become an aesthetic value, the source of judgement, of pleasure and of aesthetic fascination.

File: Atlanta-Air-Conditioning-Sunglasses-Fun.jpg (48KB, 900x677px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 900x677px

>I'm right and your wrong, here's why

This whole thread.

>>83055183
Wrong

>>83055105
Kubrick was jewish, you stormtard.

>>83055222
self hating jew

/tv/: BRAPspammers and theoretical physicists

>>83054617

A flute carved from wood is objectively art, it's an artifact, man-made.

Now, someone could argue that language itself is not objective, but subjective, an overlay that is always attempting to stand in for reality itself.

And in 1986 in the book Waking Up, Charles Tart coined the phrase "consensus trance", saying that from birth, each of us is inducted into the consensus trance of our environment/culture/society, mentioning parents, teachers, religious leaders, political figures, and I would assume, the media. Which would mean that people are told "this is what art is" and later maybe others say "this is what art is", and so perception of what is art and what is not is often influenced by peers, since humans spread memes by imitation, a meme being the smallest unit of culture.

>>83055000
yikes. as much as i hate postmodernism, it's basically right about everything.

penis

File: Drum Roll.jpg (17KB, 398x343px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 398x343px

>>83052290
badabing

>>83054820
>so objectivity cannot exist.

Do you think gravity is entirely subjective? Note that there is a difference between subjective and relative. When hydrogen bonds with oxygen to form a water molecule, is that subjective?

>many possible ways to construct statements with no objective value. So how can reality be objective if you can show "objectively subjective" statements of fact.

That shows that language is more subjective than objective. Words do not have to match reality. Since language is an overlay of reality, all kinds of statements can be made that have no basis in reality. If you drop an object it will objectively fall to the ground, and all kinds of descriptions and narratives and stories could be told about it after the fact. But language always lags behind reality itself. You can try to predict the future, but by definition the future is something that does not exist.

>the burden lies on you to show that anything objective as you define it exists, this would then be a refutation of godel's work and a reinterpretation of all modern mathematics and physics.

I think Godel's work shows that math is perhaps more subjective than objective as well. Math may be a model that approximates reality "good enough", but that never fully covers it.

Language and math are like maps, but the map is not the territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation

>>83055630
nihilistic regressives relativists BTFO

>I like how you snuck "aesthetic value" in there.
>It's completely out-of-place and shouldn't be used.

I was merely repeating the definitions from Wikitionary. Aesthetic value is #4.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/art

As in, "Her photographs are nice, but there's no art in them." Or even "are videogames art?" Another word is "artful."

aesthetic: Concerned with beauty, artistic impact, or appearance.

I never said aesthetic value is a requirement for something to be art. But I would argue that when most people today talk about "art", or argue over whether something is "art" or not, they actually have in mind aesthetic value. So people talk about the value or quality of a thing, rather than whether it's a result of creative work.

People of a certain age would consider the Mona Lisa to be art, but shit in a toilet bowl not art. But liberal snowflakes raised on a steady diet of post-modernism in universities would insist that "art is whatever you say it is." That's what Jean Baudrillard calls "transaesthetics", where the boundaries are dissolved.

>And so, although Baudrillard sees art proliferating everywhere, and writes in The Transparency of Evil that “talk about Art is increasing even more rapidly” (p. 14), the power of art — of art as adventure, art as negation of reality, art as redeeming illusion, art as another dimension and so on — has disappeared. Art is everywhere but there “are no more fundamental rules” to differentiate art from other objects and “no more criteria of judgement or of pleasure” (p. 14). For Baudrillard, contemporary individuals are indifferent toward taste and manifest only distaste: “tastes are determinate no longer” (p. 72).

File: 6.jpg (198KB, 1272x720px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1272x720px

>>83052156
He's completely right, subjectivism is cancer. Anyone who thinks there aren't objective standards for art is literally too stupid to comprehend actual art and should go back to tumblr

>>83054909
see
>>83055908

File: RothkoBlackGray.jpg (19KB, 258x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 258x300px

>>83056026

I think the art world changed, so now many people think anything is art.

Many people would probably look at this and say "how is that art?" Basically, the bar for art has been lowered, and some people would say the bar has been destroyed and the boundaries have been dissolved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled_(Black_on_Grey)

>>83055307
so everything man makes is art? does it have to serve some purpose or utility? should it exist only for it's own sake, to differentiate itself from tools of mechanical advantage or leverage? is the bleeding through of art from the mechanical tool into the subjective ideation not proof that all art is subjective?

>>83055630
humans want change and are adapted for it. if you understand this, you will understand why science never going to satisfy your religious inclinations to find order or structure where there is very little. if you concede that language is subjective then you've conceded the major bulk of the pragmatism behind this thread. namely that subjectivity is far superior to objectivity and closer to the point neither probably exist outside of human thought patterns for navigation and decision making in general. of course you can't concede that, so you're stuck using a subjective tool to defend your objective belief system. i hope i've illustrated the irony sufficiently.

>>83056180
why not just say it's art you don't like and move on?

some people argue that art has only ever existed as a power mechanism, the powerful make art for themselves, to glorify their superiority, lording it over everyone else. it should by it's very essence be unappealing to those without power. that's the classic marxist argument against art. what we consider beautiful art stems out of a tradition of rich greeks and romans using their wealth and power to commission unrealistic depictions of themselves as perfect godlike beings. in a modern society where anyone has access to food and can train their bodies to look like the greek statues, high art or power art has become this other thing.

a highly intellectualised loop which requires everything of the observer and nothing of the artist, to symbolise that the real art is in who and what the viewer is (say some multimillionaire with an ivy league education) rather than what the artist created.

>>83053275
Completely correct. /tv/ BTFO eternally.

>>83052156
Can someone link me to this quote?

File: Peinture-Konstantin-Razumov-9.jpg (110KB, 590x438px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 590x438px

>>83052156

Why will the modern generation never be able to produce anything that comes even close to this?

Why is
>Muh anxiety
Suche a huge meme.
And most importantly why is evryone so fkn shameless?

>>83052697
>Le science is my new religion man

>>83052906
Jordan Peterson shouldn't you be working on a lecture

>>83056409
>why not just say it's art you don't like and move on?
Because if we let everything be art, then nothing is art. If anything someone makes can be claimed to be art then art will be so devalued it might as well not exist as a word.

>>83057036
You're average concept artist these is better than that mediocre shit you just posted.

>>83056409
>so everything man makes is art?

An artifact is "an object produced or shaped by human craft." Something artificial is "made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally." Ars is Latin for skill. Art seems to involve being man-made. But humans are "man-made." And other animals have been given paintbrushes and made art. But I think most people distinguish between scribbles, and say, the Mona Lisa.

>is the bleeding through of art from the mechanical tool into the subjective ideation not proof that all art is subjective?

The value of art is subjective. People also resist the idea that tools are "art." But maybe all categories are subjective word games.

>you will understand why science never going to satisfy your religious inclinations to find order or structure where there is very little.

I haven't mentioned religion. And science was pretty big on order, until quantum physics undermined that.

>subjectivity is far superior to objectivity and closer to the point neither probably exist outside of human thought patterns

You're talking about perception vs reality. "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." A pile of shit may be man-made, but it isn't art. Just because you call something art doesn't make it art.

>why not just say it's art you don't like and move on?

People have standards, and have long disagreed on the boundaries of art.

>some people argue that art has only ever existed as a power mechanism

I haven't seen The Cave of Forgotten Dreams, but I think John Zerzan said art marked the appearance of the symbolic.
http://www.primitivism.com/case-art.htm

>a highly intellectualised loop which requires everything of the observer and nothing of the artist, to symbolise that the real art is in who and what the viewer is (say some multimillionaire with an ivy league education) rather than what the artist created.

Well art is linked with status and prestige, sign value.

>>83053824
Theres gotta be a name for the logical fallacy where a critic just posts wikipedia links about logical fallacies

>>83053323
>I have a phd in physics

Sorry bud, Wikipedia doesn't give out degrees

>>83056638
Seriously is this a real qoute? I can't find it anywhere

>>83052290
He's not. There is objectively beautiful art that is timeless and doesn't rely on the context of the time or the bullshit musing of a artsy fartsy bell end.

>>83056638
>>83058184
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.aco.html

>>83057532
>we let everything be art
but "we" don't decide what art is. our only mechanism is through mass consumption, and that's why you get capeshit recycled for decades now. rich people decided what you think is trash is art, and they spent millions of dollars on it, so it became valuable. there is no consensus, they felt it was a good investment of their money so they dumped billions of dollars worldwide into this lazy stuff you don't like called postmodernism.

>>83057814
>perception vs reality

i had a long paragraph discussing how objectivity reduces freedom and increases control and leads to monolithic structures such as the communist/soviet block states, which cannibalize themselves and collapse. and how subjectivity implies freedom at it's core level, and this means that you have little control but you can survive indefinitely because a wide range of ideas are entertained and compete against each other to push you towards some holistic direction which tends to improve conditions for everyone.

but i deleted it, so i guess without that context its difficult to understand what i meant by subjectivity is superior, it was a political power or social structure analysis. people who are free to dream anything are embodying ultimate pragmatism, the freedom to fail, as almost all of them do fail. the few successes are bright enough to light the path and keep the flame burning for everyone.

we don't know what the nazi model would've been, but between communism and capitalism the last 2 centuries definitely favour capitalism.

braaaap

>>83058097

Sharing information isn't a logical fallacy. And I didn't just post a link, I explicity explained explained myself:

>>If it's not popular then it's not good, in my opinion. "Good" means that something has gained approval from people. Popularity is approval.

>That's a logical fallacy, appeal to popularity, argumentum ad numeram.

Anon would have us believe that if you taste something in a restaurant, you have no way of knowing if it's "good" or not unless someone goes around and asks everyone else in the restaurant to taste it first and doesn't even taste it themselves.

>>83054292
>But ultimately these principles just reduce to approval

No. The Mona Lisa is important as a work of art due to it's importance in the development of western art as a whole. That has fuck all to do with approval.

>>83054461
Actually Shakespeare's plays and Dickens' novels where in their time popular entertainment and only later seen for their artistic merit.

Are you niggers still arguing about this? It has been 4 hours

>>83059339
>Stop arguing about art theory on a tv and film image board.

I'm sorry, are you assmad because your cunny threads keep getting deleted?

>>83052865
(((SCIENCE)))

File: images.png (15KB, 229x220px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 229x220px

>>83059414
My fucking sides

>>83059414
No it's just that from reading a few of the recent posts it seems like you are still saying the exact same things and using the same arguments. Doesn't seem like a very productive discussion.

File: image.jpg (108KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 640x640px

>>83059264
>implying Ben Jonson wasn't the real big ticket salesman
Shakespeare was not an extremely rich man, and his daughters did not marry at a reasonable age, but because "the Bard" was more objective than Jonson he survived the centuries.

>>83058469

When speaking of subjectivity vs objectivity, perception vs reality, I think it's helpful to mention art vs chemistry.

Whether a painting "looks good" or not is subjective. Whether two chemicals react in a certain way is not subjective at all. Art is subject to opinions, chemistry is not.

But language also encourages a "deity mode of speech" where people make pronouncements on what "is", so statements of opinion often get confused with declaration of facts and truth. Language itself encourages people to confuse opinions with reality, to gloss over the subjective nature of opinions and experiences, and is arguably about controlling others from a distance. Sartre said emotions are quasi "magical" attempts to change the world by changing ourselves, and the same could be said of words.

Most arguments on this board are probably some variation of "x is good/no it's not", which would be avoided altogether if people avoided "be" verbs and instead wrote "In my opinion..." or "I feel that" or "I think that", because someone else can rarely refute that and say "No, you don't think that."

As for capitalism vs communism, I think criticisms of communism can be deflected if most or all of the workers are robots. Why wouldn't robot communism work? Because currently most of the robots are owned by capitalists who use them to hoard profits?

>>83052156
>How come Kubrick was such a fucking pleb?
Are you nuts? That's the sanest thing I've heard in years, and it doesn't only apply to film, but to all arts and entertainment. A couple of decades back everyone had access to the same type of media and more or less was on the same line. Now people have so many options it's hard to find someone else watching the same shit to discuss it.

>>83059264

Perhaps. But you can't say that Shakespeare today is popular first, recognized as a great work of art second.

People also seem to be skipping what makes something popular to begin with. The people only focused on popularity are ignoring what traits led to the popularity.

>>83052697

Could you imagine actually believing this?

>>83059514
>Now people have so many options it's hard to find someone else watching the same shit to discuss it.

People talk about the fracturing of the media landscape enabled by cable TV and the internet. And I like the term "homo fractalis."

Jean Baudrillard.
>Advertising is the prefiguration of this: the first manifestation of an uninterrupted thread of signs, like ticker tape - each isolated in its inertia. Disaffected, but saturated. Desensitized, but ready to crack. It is in such a universe that what Virilio calls the aesthetic of disappearance gathers strength, that the following being to appear: fractal objects, fractal forms, fault zones that follow saturation, and thus a process of massive rejection, of the abreaction or stupor of a society purely transparent to itself.

>It is in the entire machinery of the Virtual and the mental diaspora of the networks today that the fate of Homo fractalis is played out: the definitive abdication of his identity and freedom, of his ego and his superego.

>>83053848
>art students shouldn't learn about one of the most influential artists of the 20th century because he was a commie

>>83052865
>science shows that everything is subjective though
Maybe some post-modernist, "I fucking love science" pop science that relies on producing feel-goodisms rather than actual hard science. The entire point of science is to create some sort objective knowledge base about the universe.

>modern science of the 20th and 21st
Modern science is a kabbalistic shitshow that has to make up placeholders to maintain the garbage goddamn structure instead of actually fixing the theory in the first place.

>muh quantum mechanics
kys kike, QM has been used and abused by every snake oil salesman on the planet. That's the biggest red flag that someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

>>83060085
If he were alive today, I bet the cuck would be badmouthing Trump.

>>83060122
Getting angry at quantum physics for existing is the biggest red flag that someone doesn't know what they're talking about. I bet you think the LHC is just a useless propaganda toy.

>>83060130
>art students shouldn't learn about one of the most influential artists of the 20th century because he'd badmouth the favourite meme of some people
/pol/tards are truly subhuman baboons, with no artistic sensitivity at all.

Enjoyment of something is subjective.

Quality is objective.

I can enjoy watching B-Movies, but can't defend their poor quality.

>>83060159
>arguing with dubs
>with singles
Come at the dubs with at least trips or don't come at all.

>>83052865
>in fact, all modern science of the 20th and 21st century has shown us theoretically, then experimentally that every single thing in this universe is relative to something else.
This is categorically wrong.
Both quantum mechanics and relativity theories have added new absolutes to the universe, such as the speed of light.
Quantum mechanics are also intensely dependant on objective, universal constants (such as the speed of light itself).

>>83060200
Wait until the wall is finished, it will be a modern marvel of the 21st century.

>>83060290
Dubs are relative.

>>83060122

About quantum physics, Einstein wrote "It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one's feet, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could have built."

It was the uncertainty within quantum physics that gave birth to post-modernism, with its skepticism of any overarching narrative.

It was findings in quantum physics itself which undermined scientists' ideas about the objectivity of reality.

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
>For nearly a century, “reality” has been a murky concept. The laws of quantum physics seem to suggest that particles spend much of their time in a ghostly state, lacking even basic properties such as a definite location and instead existing everywhere and nowhere at once. Only when a particle is measured does it suddenly materialize, appearing to pick its position as if by a roll of the dice.

Although...
>But now a set of surprising experiments with fluids has revived old skepticism about that worldview. The bizarre results are fueling interest in an almost forgotten version of quantum mechanics, one that never gave up the idea of a single, concrete reality.

>This new body of research reveals that oil droplets, when guided by pilot waves, also exhibit these quantum-like features.

>The orthodox view of quantum mechanics, known as the “Copenhagen interpretation” after the home city of Danish physicist Niels Bohr, one of its architects, holds that particles play out all possible realities simultaneously.

>The French physicist Louis de Broglie presented the earliest version of pilot-wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference in Brussels, a famous gathering of the founders of the field.

>The physicist David Bohm resurrected pilot-wave theory in a modified form in 1952, with Einstein’s encouragement, and made clear that it did work, but it never caught on. (The theory is also known as de Broglie-Bohm theory, or Bohmian mechanics.)

>>83060273

I think some quality is objective, some quality is subjective. And once you start using words like "poor" or "too" you've ventured into subjective opinions of value.

>>83052697
Science is subjective

>>83053275
>50 shades of gray is better than The Brothers Karamazov
>wal mart decor products are better than any other produts
>Transformers: Dark of The Moon is better than almost every movie ever made

The trump pic gives away that you're a faggot, but come on.

File: IMG_0224.png (198KB, 550x535px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 550x535px

>it's a /tv/ pretends to be smart but ends up looking like the pretentious faggot redditors they are episode

>>83061051
>it's a retard pretends to be above it all but ends up posting pepe like the know-nothing moron sheep they are episode

File: IMG_0309.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>83061119
>it's an anon calls someone a know-nothing sheep on his favorite anime-themed Uzbek abortion survivor forum episode

>>83061051
>it's a frogposter is dumb episode

>>83061051
That's every thread m8.

Whatever art is, it is irrelevant to the development of our species and should not exist. Expressions of creativity from others and indeed ourselves have little genuine impact on our physical lives.

>>83061558

Perhaps it would be useful to distinguish between art and technology.

And it's been said that when you read books, you can live more than one life, you can live many lives. The same can be said of films. The same can be said of television. The same can be said of videogames.

>>83052156
>had this feeling for years now
>could never put it into words properly
>based kubrick already figured it out before I was born

>>83061667
You can't live more than one life. Getting affected by a simulacrum of life from a piece of fiction is silly. At the end of the day, you are just anon. You're not Spartacus or Archie Bunker or Master Chief etc.

>>83061782
The point is to feel something you wouldn't feel with your normal life.

>>83061818
The point is to escape your normal life to feel emotions that are not really yours. They're the emotions of fictional characters. Fake emotions

the lowest common denominator was a good friend.

>>83061892
Just because you want to do/feel/find stuff you wouldn't usually on your normal life doesn't mean you want to escape your normal life, it's just entertainment, having a normal life is generally satisfactory for most people, but we naturally become bored of it so we need to distract ourselves.
The concept of "fake emotions" is absurd from the get-go, emotions are chemical releases inside your body, just because they're not triggered by a personal experience doesn't make them fake.

>>83062001
I'd prefer my emotions to be felt from the real world, not from some shitty movie that tries to be emotionally manipulative.

Life is boredom and we shouldn't escape it.

>>83061782

You can simulate other lives with perspective taking. In fact, your brain does it every night during sleep. Is it "silly" if you wake up from a nightmare with a racing heart? No, because simulations may be fake, but the neurotransmitters that are released in response to those simulations are real.

Getting affected by fiction isn't silly. You must be autistic.

No, you will never be Spartacus, or Archie Bunker, or Master Chief. But fiction allows you to walk in someone else's shoes, know what it feels to be someone else.

>>83061892

If you're feeling the emotions, the emotions are yours. And they can be transmitted from one person to another.

You must be an autistic person lacking in mirror neurons, if you just look at everyone like they are robots or bugs. Even dogs will yawn around each other.

Sorry your brain is broken anon because your parents waited too long to have sex.

>>83059507
>robot communism

humans are cooperative with scarcity and competitive without. to maintain your global implementation of robot communism some form of perpetual scarcity is required, so that your humans continue to cooperate. pre-industrial agrarian society with some technologically automated overlord process would probably work. the top level bureaucratic robots would also need to plug into every living human to ensure no insurrection or rebellion is being planned, you would need to tightly monitor reproduction and population levels, unplugged humans born outside of the control network would pose a systemic risk of thought contagion.

i can't imagine why it wouldn't work in theory, presumably some human would eventually break free of the control and destroy it all, but that might take a billion years.

>>83060331
constants in physics are not constant in the way you want them to be. the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, and happens to be the limiting factor for visible matter (energy), in a universe that is 5% visible matter (energy). we can't really teleport to different locations and we certainly can't get an outside-in view of the universe in any measurable or useful sense. you're just not getting enough of the picture to make claims about anything absolutely. I take a 50 megaton cube of marble and drop it in the middle of a desert it will probably stay there for another 500,000 years. Maybe 5,000,000. Maybe 5,000,000,000. At some point you say for the sake of brevity that things which take an immeasurably and impractically long time to decay are constant, inert, absolute, immutable.

Note I bias decay purposefully because the universe is in a state of entropic decay, the original creative burst of energy is dissipating into the expansion it's shockwave created, with fragments here and there coalescing into matter from which we draw reasonable but limiting conclusions.

>>83062076
Then why are you on this board? In fact, why are you on the Internet at all? This is a simulation of a conversation afterall.

Do you realize that something someone else types thousands of miles can away can provoke an emotion in you, you stupid fucking faggot?

>>83062223

By robot communism, I mean all the workers are robots, and humans take from them. In fact, capitalists already use that system, they just hoard the profits for themselves instead of distributing those profits to everyone.

Back to Marxism, which talks about who owns the means of production, rather than capitalists owning the means of production (robots), I'm suggesting a system where every person owns the means of production, and the goods the robots produce are given freely. People would essentially replace human slave labor with robot slave labor.

What is the downside to robot slavery? The development of AI is potentially a problem for robot slavery or robot communism, but that's still vaporware for the most part (although rudimentary forms would allow for automated delivery).

>>83062223
>constants in physics are not constant in the way you want them to be. the speed of light is constant in a vacuum
Now you're just bringing unknown stuff to the equation and hoping for the best.
The fact is that so far, the speed of light has been absolute, and to this day we haven't found an antimatter particle that surpasses this physical limit.
We have no indications that the speed of light is relative and all we have points to it being an absolute, just saying "we'll we still don't know everything so maybe it's not actually absolute" is not an argument.

>>83062409
there are structural and systemic problems with communism, because it is completely illiterate or ignorant of what humans do. humans transact between each other. they exchange goods, services, information. you take away their labour, they will make new labour for themselves, and exchange that, creating a new economy with capitalistic tendencies in those areas.

marx did not understand people, he understood how to critique something. his attacks of capitalism are sound, his solutions to replace it are ridiculous. always when implemented they reduce general freedom in the population, paradoxically, because they always promise to increase freedom and give power to those without it.

being alive is work, it was the struggle for survival and the transition to agriculture and much later to communal living, military service, and artisan and craft workshops, then much later industrial scale production and factories all maintained this flavour of struggle for survival and channelled it into production/consumption, since natural survival had become a moot point. for the common person, they work because it gives their life a higher purpose. if you take that away from them, they will become violent, uncooperative, addicted to destructive behavior, antisocial, suicidal. if you try to transition them smoothly into a post-work society by encouraging hobbies and pasttimes you simply create a shadow economy below the substrate of your robot economy, where people will be cobbling shoes for blowjobs. you have this race condition where your robots are now designing shoemaking robots and blowjob robots to stop people from illicitly trading their labour for profit, eventually the robots will decide it's easier to just strap everyone down and virtualized prison worlds with more imagination and fewer budget restrictions the matrix had would emerge. do you really want intelligent machines building adaptive hellscapes for mankind to stop them from working?

>>83062553
>so maybe
that's actually the entirety of my argument. you are the one saying so definitely. science has always been proven wrong, by science. the truth is physics is at an impasse for the past 90 years and people are becoming slightly worried that something is completely wrong and the theory walked itself into a local maxima and can't escape. without computers augmenting human brains there might be very little progress to come within the next 100 years, there is simply a capacity problem limited by human biology. The world of 1900 was a lot less complex than the world of today, and people in general were already feeling the theoretical crunch looming.

again, the objectivist is an absolutist so he is always convinced he knows everything there will ever be to know at the point he is making his statement. you either accept that is a ridiculous position to have and attempt to attack it yourself for the sake of intellectual honesty, or you build a religion around it and enslave people into your political or theological or economic dogma for as long as you can keep fooling them. you need to conserve the past, but you can't live inside it.

if you really want to study this go read up about (homotopy) type theory, and try to get a grasp at the shifting perceptions of modern mathematicians as they embrace algorithmic theorem proof verification and relax various truth claims that are still being taught, but have been abandoned at the higher levels. 90 years from now voevodsky will be one of these guys like godel and einstein who get brought up in arguments over the fundamental nature of constants, reality, completeness, types. but it will probably be computers doing the arguing because humans are playing some simulator life to pass the boredom.

>>83062997
>do you really want intelligent machines building adaptive hellscapes for mankind to stop them from working?

I'm saying that many consumer goods are already mass-produced by robots. And the profits from those high production rates go to private corporations. If the people collectively owned robots who did the production for them, why not distribute those goods freely?

And if home automation really takes off, with home automated gardens, maybe even home automated lab grown meat, or 3D printed homes, it cuts out the middleman of a "job" which people basically use to obtain food. Sure, people use money for more than food, but with home automation a robot can spend all its time making goods that can be sold if someone wants money for other things.

I don't necessarily believe in 'objectivitiy' in art, but I do believe that post-modernists cunts have dug themselves into a hole and have sucked all the enjoyment out of art. At least in fine arts (where I'm more familiar with than film) there's somewhat of a revival in more traditional painting for a reason. People are getting sick of the whole BRO FUCK AESTHETICS ART IS EVERYTHING WHOAAA shtick of po-mo faggots.

>>83052697
according to science everything is inherently random

>>83054128
Michael Bays Transformers

>>83063611
It's just a normal cycle in artform which repeats itself again and again, traditional rules are set and rules are broken, neo-rules come and those are broken too etc.
Art is in a bad period if it remains the same for a long period.

>>83063779
The transformers movies are extremely popular

>>83054128
Lou Reed's Lulu

>>83063578
okay but how is that any different than a prison where all your meals are provided for you?

star trek was a carefully thought out universe in some regards, note that the show itself doesn't really focus on the lives of ordinary people and instead spends all its time on geniuses aboard a travelling space ship which is trying to get as far away from earth as possible. and most of those people are using their recreational time to relive the past. there is an existential dread at the core of your worldview. either end of the spectrum makes for a terrible life, whether you get given everything or have nothing and have to claw for every scrap.

what is the purpose of profit or money in a world where your house grows you food, makes you clothes, and provides you natural shelter and everyone has a house. you'll find the answer in history, when people adapted from nomadic pastoral lives which were difficult but very rewarding, into more sedentary lives in rural homesteads and communities. humans love novelty and quality, which is something you will always be able to sell, no matter what other base needs you have met for your consumer.

people turning an amateur hobby into a profession (artisan crafts), potters, blacksmiths, tailors, bakers, carpenters, farmers. in a mass automated and industrialized economy, man made products gain a niche superior value, as they reduce base alienation and increase mindfulness. handmade things were the only things in the past, so they were precious because of the scarcity of their materials and difficulty in production, handmade things will be the only manmade things in the future, so they will be precious because of their unique scarcity and difficulty in production. so the more you change some things, the more they stay the same.

watch zardoz if you want to see this taken to a logical conclusion.

>>83063611
>yfw cavemen were just post-post-post-civilisationists who created primitive rock art ironically while brutally butchering and raping each other for sport as a raison d'etre. while the rest of humanity watched on in bemused horror from the space station built to look like the moon, after they blew up the real moon in the robot wars.

it's all happening again isn't it.

>>83052156
Kubrick was right, and all of his movies speak to a universal human instinct that underlies a jungian collective unconscious, which is why he found "subjective" and "personal" works to be so boring and banal.

Full Metal Jacket, for instance, is not about the Vietnam war so much as it is about the duality of man, which is an almost universal concept dating back to the bible.

File: AA006417.png (1MB, 764x1024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 764x1024px

>>83061051
you're cancer. the chidrens gotta fake it til they make it somewhere.
>>83061245
repeating the bit after someone already spoofed your bit is lame. ur a real lamenaut.

pic related

>>83053275
This post is pretty spot on.

>>83053410
Wasn't Kubrick Jewish though?

>>83058650
/thread

>>83066882
Only from his birth. He was completely atheist.

Kubrick is right.

t.artist sick of modern art.

>>83052156
>How come Kubrick was such a fucking pleb?
>>83052290
>>83052865

Cultural Marxist detected.

>>83053323
>he has a phd in physics
>and he doesn't entertain notions of determinate events
>and there isn't a single person alive today...

that much generality and absence of conservative judgment in making statements about a highy conservative discipline leads me to the conclusion that you have a problem with schizophrenia

take your medications, poseur

>>83053323
>nothing is objective
>here I am making a post claiming objectively a lot of stuff, like the fact humans are business machines or God is self-contradicting

I want NEETS with Dunning-Kruger to kill themselves

File: Kubrick approval.jpg (3MB, 4800x6138px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4800x6138px

>>83052156
you're a dickhead with a dickhead opinion op

but I may paint that picture of kubrick standing in the bathroom unironically
>>83067084
he was not "completely atheist" bro. He was agnostic and as an extension an atheist but he wrote and talked quite a bit about the different ways we can understand what God or gods are or may be, relative to humans. why you throw your /r/atheism memes on Kubrick?
>>83066882
he didn't agree with Hitler on the Jews. He spent close to a decade developing a movie about the holocaust.
>>83053410
and he made that comment while they where writing the script for an existential horror film about WASP sex cults.

>post-modernism was a mistake

>>83066882
has was an honorary aryan

>>83068985
PJW fan detected.