Anything written to serve a political purpose (rather than to explore and create) is propaganda, not art

youtube.com/watch?v=9f8t9vxqtZg

high energy pseud posting

I'm getting a jp quote tattoo soon but I haven't decided if I'm going for the one in the op or what he says about communism only happening because people were okay with telling lies. pros/cons of each?

please be bait

I’m trying to figure out what kind of person does this. The kind of ultra pseudy wierdo. Do you watch a lot of Ben Shapiro? Are you sexually frustrated?

Tattoos are common dude.

are you autistic? not trying to throw you under the bus but your personality is bleeding a little too much in your post

I'm a bit out of the loop. Does Veeky Forums hate jbp? or just the people who follow him like a cult?

Not the tattoo, just taking the stuff JP says really really seriously. I just don’t get it.
Was just interested, not autistic as far as I know, although I’m pretty sure everyone on this website is at least somewhere on the spectrum

both
he doesn't have anything new or brilliant to say but somehow he's famous and successful
not to mention his face ruined this board

He translates the greats to the layman. Even if he's not completely accurate he's doing a better job of spreading the general message of the western cannon than any of the people talking shit about him on this Hegel/Anime cross posting forum

He's exactly the kind of political pundit he's speaking against. He does not present the western canon in an unbiased way. He favors a right wing interpretation. Why do we act like we don't know who this guy is and what he does?

>He favors a right wing interpretation.
For example?

i think he's more libertarian or classical leftist than right wing

anyway i find his lectures in particular very insightful, they're actually a goldmine for creative writers... i don't much care for his presence in interviews or his common sense advice
youtube.com/watch?v=BkGTaXHZBLA

>creative writers
any faggot who becomes too enamoured with archetypes and all that shit is bound to end as hesse 2.0

Siddhartha is one of my favs tho

An agenda to intentionally move masses into a specific behavior.

"hurr there is no such thing as an apolitical act" is an absolutely low IQ stale meme. art becomes political when the artist intentionally sets out to change minds about political phenomenon. the sissy retard mistake that often arises here is "well they are different than you so of course their politics will be different", it misses the point.

let's say you have a nigerian kanuri who writes a novel. the worldview of such a person is radically different from that of an anglo, so if you read his novel it will be full of things you might disagree with, like the treatment of women and so on. is it political? if he extols this culture, and seeks to create empathy for the kanuri condition or to change minds in a way that will influence a political institution, then yes. but let's say it's an adventure story about a kanuri man who finds a portal to a strange world behind a waterfall. he goes there, a hero's journey plot ensues, largely with themes of self-reliance, defying adversity, and coming of age. it does not seek to persuade, it simply expresses a nearly universal human experience. everybody who doesn't die prematurely comes of age. if somebody shoots you in the skull ten times, you die. this is not subject to debate (though you can still try to debate it, you cannot debate with the dead person on the floor), and plenty of media seeks to explore these universal themes. so the difference is clear, a work becomes political when the artist consciously decides to enter his ideas into politics, instead of just creating art that can apply to interests relevant to just about every person on earth. that's not to say that political art aka propaganda cannot be interesting; I think the world would be boring without it. but a lot of it sucks, and the world is full of faggots writing terrible hot takes when they should have just stuck with the basics.

Given that literally anyone can infer political motives from any piece of art even before taking the artist or historical context into account, this "Jordan Peterson" kid is a real nump shack.

I suppose he thinks we should all be castrated children who only are allowed to draw pretty flowers and write epic fantasy stories.

If you've been on the board for more than three months and didn't come here for recommendations on "books that will make my brain bigger" then you will probably have heard the phrase "the personal is political" which is far more resonant and grasps the tight entwinement of art and politics.

to be fair, he talks in the context of children films and fiction

>Given that literally anyone can infer political motives from any piece of art even before taking the artist or historical context into account, this "Jordan Peterson" kid is a real nump shack.

hello brainlet wojak. interpretation does not make art propaganda. intent does.

Google and read "Death of the Author"

I am aware. That the concept exists does not refute anything I have said.

>interpretation does not make art propaganda. intent does.
what do you do when intention is obscured?

why do I have to do anything? how does that relate to what is or isn't propaganda?

>i think he's more libertarian or classical leftist than right wing
he's right wing. he supports the capitalist system and all other traditional institutions we have.

Death of the Author is not about inserting your own headcanon in any work as you see fit you fuckface, it's about interpreting works without taking the author into account.
It's a pretty stupid and fallacious idea but pseuds misunderstanding it made it even worse.

This thread IS about purpose so your post is even more meaningless, it's ridiculous to imply that artist can't have political intent, you're basically just handwaving the topic away without answering.

ultimately i'm just wondering how meaningful the distinction is between art and propaganda in your system. if intent is all that matters, rather than (interpreted) outcome, in theory a work designed to posit a particular ideology can still turn out to be thoughtful or eloquent or whatever other positive attribute you recognize in good works of art, correct? so at the end of the day, does it even matter if it's classified as art or propaganda, if you process it in the exact same way?

why do people here get caught up on his incorrect trivial positions and almost never discuss his main positions

>authorial intent

>gulag archipelago is not art

checkmate jordo

Because he's made the same mistake every other contemporary pop "philosopher" has made and put out way too much material and spread himself incredibly thin. Except he's even dumber than someone like Harris because his shit is mostly podcasts and YouTube videos. Nobody's going to go through the trouble of compiling his beliefs into a coherent system from shitty lectures and interviews with nobodies. He should just write a real book and call it done.

it matters because art, which is always mostly bad, becomes worse when it is mostly propaganda. if I have to choose between some idpolmonger's heartbreaking narrative of a sudanese migrant on his way to 2004 england, or the story of forbidden love between a butler and his housekeeping staff while under the employ of a frivilous aristocrat enthralled by nazis, I know which one I will choose any day of the week. both experiences are very different from my own, but one will show me almost nothing new beyond "humans are human, here is a guy who suffered and these are the pedantic details", while the other will be a smart story about a man's failure to make his own choices. and hey I get to learn about butlers (well, TROTD is largely fictionalized because in the 80s there wasn't much info available on the trade, but it's still fun)

>He should just write a real book and call it done.

He already did that with Maps of Meaning. He just says what's in that book.

Re-appropriating Joyce's aesthetics as if it were his own it seems.

>the story of forbidden love between a butler and his housekeeping staff while under the employ of a frivilous aristocrat enthralled by nazis,
what if this was written with a (nuanced, admittedly) social message in mind, and the former was written from experience to simply be a good story (even if it failed to actually accomplish that)?

in this case, neither of those are true based on what the authors have said, and what is obvious in the material itself. but in theory, I don't have a problem with propaganda itself (as I said, ) it just seems to me like it's very poorly suited for novels. it has a high chance of making your novel worse. there are other things you can do, like activism, non-fiction, etc. to spread your message.

another problem is simply the saturation of ideas resulting from propaganda. most propaganda will come from a status quo, so I dislike novels that are based on popular politics. if there is an interesting novel about why everyone in newfoundland should be forced to eat captain crunch cereal for breakfast every morning, sign me up. probably doesn't exist either.

The mere fact that this leaf cunt will say this while also praising Dostoievski should give you a clue of how much of a brainlet him and his followers are.

he praises him because he said Dostoevsky didn't write a book in order to just peddle a position, he debated the position throughout the book through the characters to see what he thought about it

Oh, so it's not propaganda when Kermit agrees with said propaganda. I get it.

99% of Maps of Meaning is just pop psychology nonsense with little to no backing.

no you don't get it. there is no message being hammered in your face in his books because he doesn't write to peddle the position. the position is debated in the book. he does agree with one side of the debate in his books but its not like the book tells you which side is the one that is supposed to look true, that is for the reader to figure out on their own after having read the debate

ok, fair enough, and i think we ultimately agree. my position is that according to your schema propaganda can be just as rewarding as art, and presumably you're on board with that, even if it rarely pans out that way in reality.

>he does agree with one side of the debate in his books
I should clarify. first he is supposed to be Peterson and second he is supposed to be Dostoevsky

>its not like the book tells you which side is the one that is supposed to look true

Yes he does you brainlet. This is one of the most common criticisms of Dostoevsky from experts on Russian literature.

>he praises him because he said Dostoevsky didn't write a book in order to just peddle a position, he debated the position throughout the book through the characters to see what he thought about it
And surprise surprise his position prevailed as the winner. You could say the same thing about Ayn Rand's approach to proving her views by using cardboard cutout caricatures spouting cliched wooden lines.

Reminder that you cannot extract Shakespeare's political or religious inclinations or biases from his texts. There are no tracks to follow. He is like God.

t. Brainlet who has only read a couple Shakespeare plays in high school

What you can divine though is his homoeroticism - and possibly his hidden Catholicism - and this mastery of masks and personas that he must have played with all his life not only explains the absence of the touch of Shakespeare's prejudices in his plays, but also the prevailing theme of stages of masks and of roles.

"You see I use the word arrest .I mean that the tragic emotion is static. Or rather the dramatic emotion is. The feelings excited by improper art are Kinetic, desire or loathing. Desire urges us to possess, to go to something. Loathing urges us to abandon, to go from something. The arts which excite them, pornographical or didactic, are therefore improper arts. The esthetic emotion is therefore static. The mind is arrested and raised above desire and loathing."

from portrait of the artist

Can you back that up

You've never read Dostoievski, did you? The man was a moralist first author second, all of his books are full of passages about people who stray from god and become prostitutes and alcoholics or whatever.

>no political purpose in Beauty and the Beast
what the fuck Memerson?

all of you are retards. you're retarded because you don't have the ability to understand that I am just saying peterson's views. someone tried to say he was being inconsistent by praising Dostoevsky but I explained why he doesn't consider him to be propaganda in order to show how he isn't being inconsistent. you can disagree with his conclusions about Dostoevsky all you want but he's not being inconsistent

imagine having this much of an undiscerning mind

Was there ever a Star Wars that wasn't?

99% of this post is conjecture

Why is ”gurls dont need no man” a political message while ”dont be shallow” isn’t? Seems arbitrary.

You know why

one raises obvious, multiple political issues while the other doesn't?

What political issues?

propaganda is propaganda not art

propaganda can later be transformed into art, not by the act of the creator but by the passage of time making a statement about the propaganda and what it represents, precisely at the moment its status diverges from propaganda it becomes a symbol for something more universal and that is when perhaps it can be viewed as art. this may happen directly after creation, there is no minimum time frame, but its the underlying symbol whose status determines its artistic qualities or lackthereof

I think he makes his point much better youtube.com/watch?v=HUkiFxBVpZM

instead of writing an extended metaphor to get your point across you should put the story first and see what archetypes emerge as a result of the story.

youre thinking of tolstoy my man

Did he say that? Lol god..

All art is political, it always affirms or subverts some element of the dominate ideology, there is no such thing as pure art. Any art which doesn’t consciously seek to also ‘say something’ by creating a tension which puts a spotlight on some aspect of how we view the world, any art that doesn’t do that is just replicating the dominate ideology in society, or specifically of the class who makes and consumes art. All the great old masters where making paintings explicitly that the rich and elite of the time would pay them for. Being just aesthetic experiences which don’t challenge how you see the world is exactly what you want when you live in the first estate.

Here are some political pieces;
Beethoven’s 3rd symphony, initially written to glorify Napoleon, then dedicated to ‘the memory of a great man.

The Wreck of the Medusa, a harsh condemnation of French establishment.

Also The Battleship Poltemkin and The Truimph of The Will are both regarded as masterpieces of film, despite being explicitly political.

your free bleeding whore of a girlfriend dating Tinder studs behind your back and shitposting on twitter

So religious art is political? Really baptises my almonds

you can be liberal and support capitalism.

THEN ALL ART IS PROPAGANDA

>BUCKO

this is your brain on marxism

>shakespeare is no longer art
Daily reminder Canada's best attempt at literature was Hogg.

What I love about Peterson is the fact that he's the stupid man's smart person.

being liberal is being right wing.

What if I took a blank canvas and threw it under a stampeding horde of gazelles? They would be trudging through mud and little by little add more and more complexity to the canvas. I wouldn't give it a name, I'd just frame it and put it on display. Would that be propaganda?

this post is propaganda

According to retards like lack of political statements are also political statements

Virgil's Aeneid was written as both political propaganda and art. Lucan's Pharsalia was written as both political propaganda and art. Shakespeare's plays were written as both political propaganda and art. There are innumerable examples of this.

You're an ignoramus, and so is Peterson.

>anything that offers political commentary is propaganda

You cannot change genes. You are born to have nonexistent discernment.

Well stated, user. But how do we differentiate political works from nationalism?

On the political spectrum liberalism is a left-wing movement; Is this a deliberate contradiction and can you elaborate for the plebs?

Isn't Dostoyevsky supposedly his fave author?

No, it's deliberate propaganda, not political commentary.

Take Lucan for instance, who in Book I of the Pharsalia made a dedication to Nero – which includes lines like multum Roma tamen debet ciuilibus armis | quod tibi res acta est – "But Rome is greater by these civil wars, because it resulted in you"[18]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharsalia

You shouldn't talk about things you know nothing about, because you end up making a fool out of yourself.

I guess user is thinking about neoliberalism.

Can somebody explain how or why he equates marxism with post-modernism? Marxist materialism and history would seem pretty antithetical to the works of most post-modernists so it just seems very odd. Is he just one of those alt-cuck figures who uses postmodernism as a catch-all term for stuff he doesn't like?

Theyre thinking about american liberals and how the fall into the grander political picture. They fall to the right because american politics generally falls to the right.

Theyre not very articulate about that though

what most of popular culture refers to as liberal today is neoliberalism
ie, colbert, oliver, hillary, obama, meyers

Because it makes it easier to market and sell his books.

>implying there are things that aren't propaganda

>Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom (as Godel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof.

Fucking lol. Why do people take this guy seriously?