Tag urself. I'm MOCKS THE CONCEPT OF VALUES
https://twitter.com/oldbooksguy/status/1695775948569018481?t=b5YxtrzSkxNBP659ywCYyg&s=19
Hell yeah. Makes me feel weird. Confuses my mind. Spit on beauty. Weed. Perfect image. 10 out of 10.
Uhm epSCUSE me, it is actually Very Important to have Good Art as it can only be produced and appreciated by superior* (*western, male) beings such as myself, see below for an important example
Show
That is legit a great sculpture too. Cloth is extremely difficult to sculpt.
It's technically very impressive, and the artist is obviously very skilled, but I don't think it's good in terms of being interesting art
Anyone know who the artist is? I'm curious what else she's done.
I can see where you're coming from. How everything is flowing, the fabric and the hair, is interesting to me though. But I'm biased, I used to sculpt. So maybe the skill on display is all I need. I wonder if she's done anything that might be more interesting in a different way.
Yeah looks like you're right.
She found her niche, that's for sure. All "woman in flowing lace in bronze". Which is cool. I always wanted to do a bronze sculpture. I have no talent compared to Luo Li Rong though.This one is cool. What do you think?
Show
About the same as the other one. There's no doubt she's good as hell at what she does, but it isn't really for me. Probably id appreciate it on a technical level more if I had the experience you have
There's an artist I have to show you guys. Idk if anyone will like his stuff, but it's definitely interesting. I can't think of his name right now, but I'll try to tag you when I do.
it's a pretty realistic impression of a woman I don't think it's bad to like art like it
That's a perfectly reasonable opinion but realism as a movement is defined by which part of reality the artist chooses to depict and that's where the artistic expression comes in.
realism is in art history the begining of the modern art movement and rejected traditional ideas about what could be depicted in art.
This person chose to depict a woman in a flowy dress, which I also don't find especially interesting
There is basically nothing interesting in terms of content about this, it's just horny with bordering-on-cartoonish anatomy and good cloth and hair. It doesn't express anything except objectification laundered through technical ability and detail.
also I don't understand why I would have to fight or die for that statue. Maybe I'm an idiot here but if you want more sculptures how about instead of killing people make statues
Ah, but you see, if the
Asiatic HordesJudeo-BolsheviksCultural Marxists win, there will be no one superior* (*western, male) left to build such statues!
— "GOOD ART CLARIFIES THE MIND AND HINTS AT FORGOTTEN VALUES. GOOD ART IS MAN'S DIVINE RIGHT AND TERRIBLE DUTY. THE WHINING, COPING, HAM SANDWICH RACE WISHES TO DESTROY THE CANON."Some twisted, malevolently bad cartographer somewhere:
:sicko-yes: i'm making this map wrong
on purposeI am "instinctively recognized as a scam".
Only thing that really fits is NFTs.
His whole feed is distilled fart-huffing. Gonna grab a few favorite snippets:
Beyond a certain level of intensity, ambition, and drive, of course "normal" people will start squirming around you. Elon knows this and has made his peace with it a long time ago
Only Ayn Rand was smart enough to predict that incompetence and an ENVY for excellence will lead to dystopian social outcomes.
The Unabomber Manifesto🧵
Ted Kaczynski’s IQ: 167 Harvard admission: At 15 Youngest ever math prof, UCB: At 25 Money spent by FBI to find him: $50+ mil
The manifesto attacks modern civilization like nothing else before or since
13 best insights from a Philosopher-Terrorist👇🏻
It's amazing that Jordan Peterson delivered his most based material inside a fucking university.
And now that he has infinite wealth he can only deliver platitudes.
I have to stop, this could go on forever
It's amazing that Jordan Peterson seemed slightly more normal when surrounded by peers and held to some level of accountability (not much)
Oh but now that he's much more wealthy and unaccountable to anyone suddenly his life falls apart. Weird
this feels fascist
this is basically the nazi obsession with removed art (the fact it was removed implies worse words than what I actually said)
If "Hints at Forgotten Values" and "Believes in, and tries to produce, beauty" weren't enough then "Good art is man's divine right and terrible duty" should remove all doubt. Its most definitely Fasch.
On the offchance anyone doesn't know, it's the word that's the opposite of regenerate
I'm "SETS OFF A DOWNWARD SPIRAL"
Also, this feels like a personal attack on my art.
IDK, maybe he just really hated Uzumaki.
Maybe his next list will have "MAKES YOU WALK INTO YOUR HOLE" as a criteria for bad art.
It sucks that perspective, color theory, light logic, and anatomy don't exist anymore. I wish it took even less than a single google search to find art tutorials, artists with open commissions, and professional artists posting their work on instagram. This is coming from the same jokesters who deride people for studying art for their occupation. This is a funny one because it doesn't even feel like they're saying poor or queer people shouldn't exist, this is just them being uninformed hypocrites straight up.
Edit: Noticing that Fun with a Pencil (Pain with a Pencil), came out in 1939. Loomis' work has been wildly influential on how people do figure drawing/portrait drawing but somehow standards were decreasing and continued to decrease despite his influence in the realm of "art"
Lord give me the confidence of PragerU when they make these graphs. They know their audience is a bunch of clapping seals who will unquestioningly believe this affront to knowledge as a concept.
Art reduced to personal expression
Damn I wonder how and why that happened :pollock-cia-cool:
"despues de altamira todo es decadencia" "after altamira all is decadence" missatributted to picaso.
makes you feel weird
Waaah, all art must exist as shallow, uplifting slop!
mocks the concept of values
How dare an artist endeavour to make something that questions my values!
The only real difference between good art and bad art, if there is such a distinction, is whether the art is revolutionary or reactionary. Art that serves revolutionary politics is good while art that wallows in some reactionary nonsense is bad. It's quite telling that values has to either be hinted at or mocked, leaving little room for openly politicized art. Could it be that this loser has reactionary ideas but understands that those reactionary ideas can't be openly expressed so they must be hinted at?
I guess a lot of black metal artists are just outright nazis. Though to be real here, metal seems to be one of the rare occasions fascists can do art. Usually they put out shit.
It's reactionary a metal artist thing?
I honestly don't know, that's why I'm asking. I've never heard of reactionary until I came here.Reactionary is a word which describes the politics of the far right. It’s a reaction against social progress or against the movements pushing for social progress. Fascism is a reaction against socialism and communism, it’s the current ruling class (these days, the bourgeoisie, but also in the past the aristocracy and monarchs) reacting with violence and repression against the social movements that want to overthrow them or put limits on their power and take power for the working class.
Nothing wrong with learning. Sadly, it's fairly common, with DSBM or something like that used to denote the nazi black metal artists. Outside of black metal it's generally less common, but last I heard the Epica vocalist really hates black people. Sabaton doesn't look too pretty either, being pro-Isreal and singing songs on nazi commanders and templars and shit. Don't let that stop you from being a metalhead though. There's good-hearted bands and good-hearted metalheads out there.
Thanks.
No I'd never base an entire genre on one section. That's not a problem. I appreciate the reply.
Nah, great art transcends the binary of revolutionary or reactionary
One could argue that great art has to have some level of creativity. And thus by deffinition cant be reactionary.
Even if a reactionary makes good art. The art has to have creativity in that sense the art is no longer reactionary.
Dali is by all accounts a pretty good artist and he was reactionary as they come
Yes. But the art is very creative. He clearly has a positive vission not in the sense that its moraly good but in the sense that it adds something. So the art its not reactionary even if the artist is. Same with the campbellians. Reactionary art is that wothout a positive vission. Like hotel paintings. Or a lot of current literature. Its empty. And it correlates a lot with the left column
feels weird to define reactionary not as being counter revolutionary but as being uncreative.
Well we are talking about art. And while art is certaily influenced by material condition. I think art exsists in a realm of abstract ideas. And its reactionry character should relate to that realm.
And as long as art is comunicating something new. Its moving the structure in the ideal realm of art forward. Its doing the work of art in exploring posivilities and expressing something. And its real world impact is not antirrevolutionary unless it promotes anti revolutionary ideas but if thats the case then those are not creative.
Yet i see a lot of "art" that is reactionary in the sense that has no positive ideas. And that seems to be way more prevalent now. And even even if we judge it from its real world material impact this is clearly more anti revolutionary than art made by a reactionary that at least bring some new perspectives. That is why i made the distinction.
Dali was outspoken in his love of Hitler. You don't really get more reactionary than being a fan of Hitler
