Censorship and Art

Titan_Atlas · Mar 7, 2017

Feanor said:
I have and continue to read tons of old stuff. The Eddas, Chaucer in Middle English, the Decameron (what Canterbury Tales was based on), Anglo Saxon Chronicle, Book of Invasions, Gesta Danorum, geoffery of monmouth, pliny etc.

Sorry didn't mean that as an insult. Like I say, I believe art is very Objective and it's the finer details that are Subjective. Art for me is the attempt to capture beauty. Because why would you enshrine ugliness or weakness or failure. Art has a duty to reflect the Philosophy of the people who create it. When you enshrine ugliness, wimsy, depression, and generally a highly negative and uncaring view of the natural order of your world. That then becomes a representation of the world you lived in throughout history. Is Jackson Pollack, Warhol, and Matress girl what we wish to be remembered by?

Lendarios · Mar 7, 2017

Titan_Atlas said:
Sorry didn't mean that as an insult. Like I say, I believe art is very Objective and it's the finer details that are Subjective. Art for me is the attempt to capture beauty. Because why would you enshrine ugliness or weakness or failure. Art has a duty to reflect the Philosophy of the people who create it. When you enshrine ugliness, wimsy, depression, and generally a highly negative and uncaring view of the natural order of your world. That then becomes a representation of the world you lived in throughout history. Is Jackson Pollack, Warhol, and Matress girl what we wish to be remembered by?

The world is uncaring, ugly and depressive.

Feanor · Mar 7, 2017

I mistyped Geoffrey and that triggers me.

Mattress girl is shit. That is not art, that is utter horseshit. Warhol meh, never gave a shit about him. Pollock is awesome.

Titan_Atlas said:
Sorry didn't mean that as an insult. Like I say, I believe art is very Objective and it's the finer details that are Subjective. Art for me is the attempt to capture beauty. Because why would you enshrine ugliness or weakness or failure. Art has a duty to reflect the Philosophy of the people who create it. When you enshrine ugliness, wimsy, depression, and generally a highly negative and uncaring view of the natural order of your world. That then becomes a representation of the world you lived in throughout history. Is Jackson Pollack, Warhol, and Matress girl what we wish to be remembered by?

I can respect that.

Titan_Atlas · Mar 7, 2017

Lendarios said:
The world is uncaring, ugly and depressive.

I think the benefit to you and Tolan being on this board, is to make others points purely by existing and commenting.

Lendarios · Mar 7, 2017

Titan_Atlas

How was your world when you were in prison ?

Lendarios · Mar 7, 2017

I'm waiting for you to tell me what is the objective qualification for beauty and art.
Are the ugly ass painting made by caveman, not art, because they were crude?

Is the ugly bizantino painting with the wide eyes not art.

Look at how ugly this is

Deformed faces, un natural proportions, and it is also a classic.

AngryGerbil · Mar 7, 2017

If I suddenly walked across the Eads Bridge tomorrow and claimed the Territory of Southern Illinois as henceforth annexed by The People's Republic of Missouri, nobody would take me seriously.

I would be 'price-fixing' the commonly understood boundaries. I would be destroying information. Maiking truth subject to my will. I would be aimed at calamity.

Sentagur · Mar 8, 2017

Lendarios said:
I'm waiting for you to tell me what is the objective qualification for beauty and art.
Are the ugly ass painting made by caveman, not art, because they were crude?

Is the ugly bizantino painting with the wide eyes not art.

Look at how ugly this is
View attachment 125012
Deformed faces, un natural proportions, and it is also a classic.

That baby is totally the inspiration behind Kuato in Total Recall.

Feanor · Mar 9, 2017

Titan_Atlas said:
Like I say, I believe

Subjective.

Palum · Mar 9, 2017

Lendarios said:
I'm waiting for you to tell me what is the objective qualification for beauty and art.
Are the ugly ass painting made by caveman, not art, because they were crude?

Is the ugly bizantino painting with the wide eyes not art.

Look at how ugly this is
View attachment 125012
Deformed faces, un natural proportions, and it is also a classic.

Just because something is classic doesn't mean it's not shitty.

This is hipster logic, the same people who think "rustic" means anything other than negligence and lack of maintenance. You don't get that sun or water damaged look without letting your property go.

Feanor · Mar 9, 2017

Palum said:
Just because something is classic doesn't mean it's not shitty.

This it true. We can argue all day about what you consider good, Palum.

You're a guitar player, right? List some not shitty music.

Palum · Mar 9, 2017

Feanor said:
This it true. We can argue all day about what you consider good, Palum.

You're a guitar player, right? List some not shitty music.

Not shitty by what standards?

The problem is that art has a subjective component (an individual's emotional reaction to it) and an objective one (the technical mastery or competency with the medium). People can like or dislike different art that is objectively good or bad. In the same way, art can have historical significance yet be utterly dogshit by modern standards. It could have personal significance like that derpy firetruck your 4 year old drew that looks like a red turd. None of that emotional resonance means that we cannot objectively compare to other works of art and conclude your four year old is a terrible artist with no skill.

Some of the most technically proficient musicians produce some of the worst songs to listen to because they lack human character and subjective reach with a wide audience. So when you ask for good music you need to differentiate between asking for music I like vs actually good music with excellent production values, mastery of the instruments, good songwriting, etc.

Feanor · Mar 9, 2017

Palum said:
Not shitty by what standards?

The problem is that art has a subjective component (an individual's emotional reaction to it) and an objective one (the technical mastery or competency with the medium). People can like or dislike different art that is objectively good or bad. In the same way, art can have historical significance yet be utterly dogshit by modern standards. It could have personal significance like that derpy firetruck your 4 year old drew that looks like a red turd. None of that emotional resonance means that we cannot objectively compare to other works of art and conclude your four year old is a terrible artist with no skill.

Some of the most technically proficient musicians produce some of the worst songs to listen to because they lack human character and subjective reach with a wide audience. So when you ask for good music you need to differentiate between asking for music I like vs actually good music with excellent production values, mastery of the instruments, good songwriting, etc.

I completely agree that skill is not at all subjective, but even that in terms of music is actually subjective. You said it, I'll take Bob Dylan over Celine Dion any day.

Titan_Atlas · Mar 9, 2017

Feanor said:
I completely agree that skill is not at all subjective, but even that in terms of music is actually subjective. You said it, I'll take Bob Dylan over Celine Dion any day.

What you don't seem to understand is. The utter dogshit Subjective standards produce in society. You must be objective as much as possible all the time or we are in a downward spiral to the bottom tier of effort, hard work, mastery. Subjective is the gutter of human behavior.

Feanor · Mar 9, 2017

Titan_Atlas said:
What you don't seem to understand is. The utter dogshit Subjective standards produce in society. You must be objective as much as possible all the time or we are in a downward spiral to the bottom tier of effort, hard work, mastery. Subjective is the gutter of human behavior.

You have opinions, Titan. You cannot free yourself from them nor would you want to. There is a difference between subjectivity and subjectivism taken to its unnatural extreme, and in that I agree with you.

Feanor · Mar 9, 2017

The more you fight against it the more you sound like a subjectivist, by the way. I don't know when you were red pilled and it was probably here on rerolled during or after Trayvon Martin, but I was 'redpilled' a long, long time ago.

Lendarios · Mar 9, 2017

Palum said:
Not shitty by what standards?

The problem is that art has a subjective component (an individual's emotional reaction to it) and an objective one (the technical mastery or competency with the medium). People can like or dislike different art that is objectively good or bad. In the same way, art can have historical significance yet be utterly dogshit by modern standards. It could have personal significance like that derpy firetruck your 4 year old drew that looks like a red turd. None of that emotional resonance means that we cannot objectively compare to other works of art and conclude your four year old is a terrible artist with no skill.

Some of the most technically proficient musicians produce some of the worst songs to listen to because they lack human character and subjective reach with a wide audience. So when you ask for good music you need to differentiate between asking for music I like vs actually good music with excellent production values, mastery of the instruments, good songwriting, etc.

I agree it is super shitty, by your and our standards. But to pretend that those standard don't vary with time and the individuals is what the heart of this argument is.

Art and beauty is subjective, it varies from person to person, and sometimes even on the same person, it varies depending on how old, and a myriad of other conditions.

To say that beauty in art, or even art itself is objective, because reasons, is what I am against.

If you think is objective give me the definition.

I personally don't like the Mona Lisa, it is too bland. And If people from that time period were doing amazing things such as the Sixteen Chapel, then the Mona Lisa pales in comparison to what their countrymen were doing.

mkopec · Mar 9, 2017

Lendarios said:
I personally don't like the Mona Lisa, it is too bland. And If people from that time period were doing amazing things such as the Sixteen Chapel, then the Mona Lisa pales in comparison to what their countrymen were doing.

Wasnt both the above done by same guy?

Just sayin.

Titan_Atlas · Mar 9, 2017

The sixteen chapel folks. The sixteen fucking chapel. THE SIXTEEN CHAPEL!!!!!!!

Feanor · Mar 9, 2017

mkopec said:
Wasnt both the above done by same guy?

Just sayin.

You are obviously trolling or stupid.

Titan_Atlas said:
The sixteen chapel folks. The sixteen fucking chapel. THE SIXTEEN CHAPEL!!!!!!!

Ooh look at you! You know words!

Censorship and Art

Deus Vult

Trump's Staff

Karazhan Raider

Deus Vult

Trump's Staff

Trump's Staff

Poet Warrior

Low and to the left

Karazhan Raider

what Suineg set it to

Karazhan Raider

what Suineg set it to

Karazhan Raider

Deus Vult

Karazhan Raider

Karazhan Raider

Trump's Staff

Deus Vult

Karazhan Raider