Literature on Art

Why haven't you read the definitive book on art and its history, Veeky Forums?

t. shill

t. postmodernist

Your book is really bad, stop shilling it here.

Why is it bad?

Icy has written some legitimately excellent material and I agree that game reviews should really only focus on the mechanics and have lots of screenshots. However, his schizoid ramblings about any other topic (even though art games are total shit) is not worth filtering through.

Check the archives, it's explained at length.

It's not even a real book, user.

Don't give me that bullshit. Give me your take on it.

It's a physical book.

What publishing house?

His own.

inb4 you say some retarded shit like that makes it a fake book. I guess Nietzsche published fake fucking books too.

Publishing essays require a very thorough editorial process. This book obviously didn't go through one.

Whats this

What do you think required further editing?

Write your own books, maggot.

>schizoid ramblings
Everything he said in the book is grounded in the works of Nietzsche, Baudrillard, and other art critics. He's also far from being the only one making the claims that he does in the book. Roger Kimball has touched on very similar concepts (though Kimball has nothing to do with video games and thus his scope on the subject is narrower).

>grounded in the works of Nietzsche, Baudrillard, and other art critics
That's pseud talk desu.

All good writers have their starts in other authors. Stop showing your true postmodern colors and blatantly shitting on the notion of tradition for no apparent reason.

Anthony, come home and pay denbts.

You're projecting, sadly.
Honestly, your book has nothing to do with the work of the authors you mentioned.

>calling someone a postmodernist when posting manzoni
i guess the book didn't work then
that's not gombrich. you should read heidegger on the origins of a work of art instead of OP pic any way for a better origin

I read the part available for free on his website and liked it. I can't justify paying for the rest because I suspect its only a couple of pages summarizing what he said. I would probably not have this suspicion if he wasn't a known scammer.

>your
You ruin discussion by doing this shit. I'm not him.

There's literally huge chunks of Nietzsche quoted in the book and then extrapolated on. You clearly don't know what Nietzsche even thought about art. What he's talking about is essentially a follow up to Baudrillard's Conspiracy of Art and Theory of Sign Value as well, applied to what is happening in video game culture right now (or was more prominently when he wrote it). I get that these are complex concepts, but seriously, "nothing to do with the work of the authors" is absurd, completely absurd, especially since he fucking QUOTES the guys!

It is really obvious how much you are trying to curb discussion of any of this, as if you have some personal stake in this. I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of the pseud bloggers trying to derive some fame from him.

The cover has Manzoni on it, but it's a polemical work. The cover is not representative of what the book advocates but of what it's attacking.

He quotes, he apes, he shills, what can't he do!

Write an essay about art history.

Prevent the resentment of retards.

This pamphlet has been discussed to death. Check the archive.

Go to bed Icy.

If it's been discussed to death, why do threads about art theory and philosophy still appear just as clueless about the subject as ever?

In the archives I also find threads several months apart that die before they even hit 30 posts with basically no discussion at all. Point me to one where there was extensive discussion.

...

Not an argument, or a discussion.

Not a single post discussing the ideas either by the camps for against him.

>the argument makes the same argument as manzoni as an argument against manzoni
just so you know, manzoni agrees and denounces the shill manzoni for his faecal decadence.

It's hard to work up the motivation to write further on it when it's clear other people are only interested in dismissing and ironizing it as quickly as possible.

But, I'm working on an essay myself that may shed some light on why it's valuable. Not that it's needed... but in a way, it seems like it is, because many people refuse to acknowledge on the basis of his writing style being offensive and unfashionable.

Criticizing writing style is just the easiest way to be dimissive, because you don't need to have understood or even mention a single idea. Someone like that simply has no interest in his writing period. Most people have no interest in art theory at all. The subject has virtually zero discussion on popular boards and outlets about video games.

>Most people have no interest in art theory at all.
Most people are not interested in art period, which does have a lot to do with all this.

His definition of art was something like 'a simulation designed to give pleasure'. So that would include most games, movies, and tv shows; it's not a definition that says only paintings, poetry, and marble structures are art. So in his realm of thinking nearly everyone is interested in art.

>So in his realm of thinking nearly everyone is interested in art.
Subconsciously, but not consciously.

What does that mean? No one can be said to be interested in a movie "unconsciously".

What I mean is, they are driven by pleasure, but don't have a fully formulated and coherent philosophy of art or what it is they are even doing. In that sense, the masses are "correct" about what is art (i.e. it is what is found to be most pleasurable among human creations) but that does not make them philosophers or master critics on the subject.

hahahahahahahahahahahahhaah

go read some bredekamp, damisch and belting

I'll check them out, but they appear to only touch on older art forms, which takes them down a peg.

Those aren't subhumans, those are chimps. Now go to bed, Anthony.

I think there's certain point in the average person's where they all somehow grasp onto the idea that pleasure is associated with guilt and that if they are having too much fun something is wrong.

Pleasure needs to be taken down a peg if you want to spread the idea that art should be about moralizing, spreading political idealogy, 'meaning', etc.

>Tragedy gives pleasure, first: to strong and fearless natures (including the tragic artist himself) by challenging them to imagine themselves in situations they could barely deal with (in which all of their "dammed-up strength", as it were, i.e. all of their energy, could be discharged — energy discharge being quite simply the essence of pleasure). Then, it gives pleasure to the lower species, to the weak, the sick and the suffering, by giving them an opportunity to invent for themselves a noble interpretation of their condition, thereby offering them a measure of relief in the form of an invitation to "resignation" (to their fate, as it were, in the manner of the doomed characters in the tragic play). And finally, to the physiologically and/or spiritually exhausted it provides a much-needed stimulus for their frayed and diseased nerves — an artificial path to psychological excitation, to rare and elevated feelings, which, being exhausted, they could not have achieved by natural (i.e. non-artistic) means.