At what point did art become reduced to sign value in academia? Any books that touch on this?

At what point did art become reduced to sign value in academia? Any books that touch on this?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_value
goodreads.com/book/show/320788.Cultural_Capital?ac=1&from_search=true
artrenewal.org/Article/Title/good-art-bad-art
artrenewal.org/Article/Title/abstract-art-is-not-art
artrenewal.org/Article/Title/meaningful-art-in-a-meaningful-universe
artrenewal.org/Article/Title/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>At what point did art become reduced to what it has always been

I guess whenever the first man painted animals on the side of a cave, my dude

>sign value
explain what you mean by this?

So cave men drew themselves sodomizing animals on their cave walls above their bedrocks and paid a fortune's worth of berries to own that cave just to impress the neighbor cave men? Sounds plausible, any books that demonstrate this assertion with reason?

my diary tbqh

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_value

GET THAT NICE STITCHED FABRIC OUT OF THE WATER YOU DUMB CUNT SOMEONE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY ON THAT!!!

So are you mad at the lack of practical value of decorative paintings?

Why would I be mad? I'm just looking for books to read on the phenomenon.

oh, okay. the phrasing came off as a bit upset

Are you retarded? Sign value has always been the primary value of art. Some Celtic king in the depths of prehistory wearing golden decorative armor to a gathering of lords is the same thing as some fat fuck Belgian lord in 1500 showing off his shiny new Van Eyck to a visiting dignitary is the same as the wife of a stock broker showing her "friends" the antique Tiffany necklace her husband bought her for their anniversary.

goodreads.com/book/show/320788.Cultural_Capital?ac=1&from_search=true

I have no reason to assume that considering it makes little sense.

Appreciate it.

You might have autism then

You're not helping your case. If you think otherwise, then what are some books that argue in your favor? Because it ISN'T obvious that earning social prestige has always been the "primary value" of art.

artrenewal.org/Article/Title/good-art-bad-art
artrenewal.org/Article/Title/abstract-art-is-not-art
artrenewal.org/Article/Title/meaningful-art-in-a-meaningful-universe

Richard Wagner has written various essays that touch on the concept your elaborating, specfically in that of "Das Judenthum in der Musik" In there he explains how all art forms of culture are essentially divided into two seperate forms:
>The kind that are made for the sheer purpose of social standing, personal fame and that of ones own ecnomic desires or as you would say sign value in some regards.
>The aesthetic kind that are made with nothing but concepts of beauty, passion and traditon in mind regardless of the economic or social value.

The short essay in turn is certainly worth reading for Wagners eloquent way of writing is certainly reflective of his operas, despite the antisemitism that is included which is not every ones cup of tea, it
offered a great insight into his theory and ideas on the declining state of culture in socitey that is still very much applicable if not even more by todays standards.

artrenewal.org/Article/Title/
artrenewal.org/Article/Title/
artrenewal.org/Article/Title/

You have to be smart or at least portentous to see the value in art.

>too lazy to read
I think you might have autism

nice projection

Stop spamming the thread and contribute something.

read Guenon, once art started to signal individuality in general it was already lost

>it makes little sense.
not an argument

It's wild that the extent of art is...jewelry and armor.