Reminder that if you don't read and understand Jack Kerouac you are not an intellectual...

Reminder that if you don't read and understand Jack Kerouac you are not an intellectual. Keep reading books by european feminist men like I see you people post on my board and enjoy your atrophied mind.

Your board? Well excuse me I didn’t know moot came back with a stick up his ass

I didn't say "your" board. I said My Board. Go read some Kerouac, kid.

>degenerate modernist "painting"
>degenerate Beat "writing"
no thanks

Oh, not a de Kooning fan? I bet you don't like John Coltrane either. I pity you. Change your ways and maybe you can enter the intelligentsia.

This looks like it was made by a paranoid schizophrenic in an art therapy session. What's meant to be so great about it?

That piece was made by Don Vliet. He is a hero of mine. You may know him as Captain Beefheart. My and my art group were listing to his album "Safe as Milk" the other evening.

Shitty, amphetamine-tortured and gimmicky prose, an insultingly poor ripoff of early Hamsun, and, worst of all, unmistakably American.

>“What is that feeling when you're driving away from people and they recede on the plain till you see their specks dispersing? - it's the too-huge world vaulting us, and it's good-bye. But we lean forward to the next crazy venture beneath the skies.”

Right on man, totally xD

i like de kooning but i hate coltrane and i hate even more the people who like him

You are afraid of yourself. Thelonious Monk is even better.

On the road is just senseless Americana that goes nowhere, got a few good lines tho

Also bait

what do you mean i'm afraid

Is there any point in teenage private schooled, privileged American kids reading Kerouac? Their opinions, in between college and law firm, aren't going to count for much. Kerouac and Cassady are for the wild ones. Kids here are just going to be 'omg he slept with a 16yr old' and think that's the start and end of critique.

Putting Jack Kerouac up there with Van Vliet, De kooning and Coltrane is a stretch to put it mildly. Also your posts reek of poser. Either you're a troll or you are desperately seeking attention and recognition.

You know damn well what you are afraid of. You fear Jazz. For it makes you look at yourself. You don't like what you see. Do you?

Shit musician making shit music that morons, in their attempt to look relevant, frequently oink as being 'intelligent.' Lemme guess: you have an old SPIN t-shirt and listen to Jandek, right?

Sure thing kid, sure... Improvisational music is the purest form of human expression. Charlie mingus wrote that.

Nah, improv means that there's no structure, that it's just fucking around with no sense of direction or purpose. Mingus had control issues - which I'm sure you'll chalk up as a refusal to compromise his integrity - due to his being a mutt. Again, meaningless and aimless. Like your opinion.

>improv is just fucking around

jesus fucking christ how old are you?

If anything it is a more sophisticated structure. It is in the mind of the artist and reacts as time moves forward. I would agree that it is meaningless. We all are. Nothing but bundles of nerves waiting to dissolve into nothing.

Coltrane and Kerouac would have spit in your fucking pseudo-intellectual poser ass face

>he is intimidated that people like things he doesn't understand, so assumes all of those people are posers

oh i thought you had something interesting to say. No i dont little man, i just like bach more.

Bach is Jazz.

>not liking both

I'll bet you think that Adorno quote that gets posted around here about jazz being castration symbolism because it's "mechanically regressive," or whatever the fuck, is spot on

I am reading Some of the Dharma right now and it is bigly informative regarding Buddhism. Kerouac is one of my favorite people. I spent a few years hopping freight and living on the road because of his example.

questions age by using 3rd generation Cruise meme
>how old are you?

holy shit. you actually believe this.

I think I have my answer.

My Favourite Is Desolation Angels, and Big Sur.

Both of those are underrated as hell. Big Sur is my favorite but I also liked The Subterraneans a lot. The book he wrote with Burroughs is very good too.

Theres nothing wrong with jazz or bach or any other arts/artists mentioned in this thread, except the assertion that reading and understanding Kerouac is somehow a measure of intelligence.

That and OPs insufferable I'm better then u cuz I can namedrop arty farts.

But in some ways, this provides a good mirror for all those lit posters obsessed with the patrician / plebeian dichotomy. It's the exact same bullshit, only made painfully visible in this thread. I hope all of you self proclaimed patricians are reading this.

no i dont; i dont know shit about jazz friendo, all i've done is give a shot to some famous stuff a few times. it all just bored me. coltrane monk davis duke ellington. the one thing i like is django reinhardt. really jazz people are insufferable, the last debate i've had like this the guy ended up saying to me he thought ellington was bach-beethoven level, and a few shots later that he didn't really like classical. that's how i picture the lot of you now.

holy shit, you don't?

I should think that a jazz person who dismisses all classical after listening to a few composers is as insufferable as a classical person who dismisses all jazz after listening to a few artists (i.e. you).

try this

Surely the thing people do and the things they consume are the only way to measure intellect.And my opinion is that Keroac not being enjoyed is grounds to question your brain quality.

>degenerate modernist "painting"

you have rather low brainpower i'm afraid. classical is infinitely broader than jazz, and certainly much greater; and i haven't dissmissed jazz, i merely expressed my dislike thereof. do not misuse your pic related for posts of that stupidity please

thanks, i will

It is degenerate. It rejects artistic standards that agreed upon for a reason, it's only "art" for people who just want to be different for the sake of it.

Agreed upon by who?

>names four artists
>"it all just bored me"
>"really jazz people are insufferable"
>"i do like django reinhardt though"
ok slugger. If you can't see yourself in this ostensible "person" who "doesn't really like" classical, knows Beethoven, you really can't introspect.

Agreed upon by artists, real artists who made real art and knew what that entailed, and who respected the art that came before them and imitated it, allowing cumulative study of the best artistic practise over generations of artists.

can i ask you to construct a meaningful sentence or is that beyond your neuronal abilities?

wtf I hate Ulysses now

>doesn't understand art
kys please you fucking moron
You have autism. Go back to /pol/

Why paint a realistic picture if you can look out the window at something real. A painting is the mind of the artist transferred through movement onto a surface.

>phonetic quebecois
Damn your standards for knowing French are low.

>Surely the thing people do and the things they consume are the only way to measure intellect

The notion that intellect is measurable exposes you as a tryhard. I enjoy art that contribute to my life in one way or another. Kerouac never gave me anything of value, except i realized that his all american naive idealism was a blind alley. He realized himself too and drunk himself to death at his moms house. If you enjoy him thats great. i will not complain about you liking cheesecake better than brownies either. I object to your trying to measure intelligence by taste. It only shows how stupid you are

>A painting is the mind of the artist transferred through movement onto a surface.
A painting is a means of projecting visually beautiful images. (And a window can't be art because the image through a window hasn't been crafted by an artist to be aesthetically pleasing.)

If it exists can it not be measured?
A beautiful image is a any image, or even a window itself, could be art, to any one person.

dumbass

>even a window itself, could be art
No, it could be beauty in nature but don't call it art when there's no artist, that doesn't make sense. If you went to an art gallery and they just told you "look out of the window, it's as good as any painting" you would feel conned.

this is not beautiful

Literally what Yves klein sold as art lel (points of view).

Does love exist? How do you measure it?
Does heartache exist? How do you measure it?
Do feelings exist? How do you measure them?
Do thoughts exist? How do you measure them?
Do dreams exist? How do you measure them?

Qualities and quantities. Trying to quantify unquantifiable qualities is stupid at best.

But you are looking at the window, not what you can see through the window. The window was crafted by man, no?

>Yves 'The blue sky is my first artwork' Klein
>poseur bullshit
not a surprise.

>A painting is a means of projecting visually beautiful images
Leave. You're lowering the collective IQ of the board by at least 20 points. Aesthetic != Beautiful, imbecile. Go watch PragerU videos on youtube.

I would argue those things you listed do not exist, in the way you are implying. Intellect, however, is the measure of a man.

you are uneducated

>Aesthetic != Beautiful
You're right, but not the way you think. A painter might stumble upon an aesthetic effect by accident but not true beauty. Beauty is always purposeful. An aesthetic object cannot be beautiful when it is destructive to the pursuit of art as a discipline.

remainder that if you like raphael but not modigliani or schiele you don't find raphael beautiful, you find him pretty.

The only thing you can measure by reading habits, art consumption etc, is class- or certain forms of cultural capital. See Bourdieus's "Distinction"

Also, if you argue that love, emotions, dreams and so forth dont exist, I would like to hear the explanation.

Either way, You never answered my question.

And wether intellect is the measure of man or not is subject to debate too. Go to Veeky Forums and try your luck there

There are windows everywhere, but only one Sistine Chapel ceiling. That should help you work out which is the more valuable work of art.

The only one being destructive to art is yourself. Go wank on some Bouguereau painting you imbecile, "muh beauty" isn't the measure of art. Here, go stroke your cock.

>"muh beauty" isn't the measure of art.
Only because you've replaced it with "muh self-expression" in which everyone is as good an artist as everyone else. This is a degenerate idea spread by people with no talent who are trying to bring art down to their level. If art isn't aiming for beauty then what are you even trying to achieve?

The Aesthetic experience. "muh beauty" is a measurement for plebs who mistake their bodily impulses for artistic value. Go wank on some Bouguereau painting you lowbrow dumb scrutonite.
>No talent
Kek, sure Picasso, Monet, Leopardi and Van Gogh had "no talent" you pseud.

>The Aesthetic experience
Is the human form not good enough for you? Artists spent hundreds of years painting the human form because of all forms it can convey the most emotion. Abandoning the human form like Picasso did is deliberate subversive tactic intended to make people ignore real humanity in favour of ever more abstract "expressions" of their own confusion.

Yes, yes. Big bad Picasso be keeping da western art down n shiet. Good god you're such a dumb slave moralist it hurts.
You keep speaking of tradishun yet your conception of art is a wishy-washy romanticism, not even the romanticism concerned with the Sublime.

You don't have any real arguments do you? You've simply accepted that Picasso is a great artist because, while you can't imagine going through the training required to paint like the best realist painters, you can imagine yourself slapping some paints onto a canvas without bothering to make them really look like anything. Picasso and the rest of the modernist "painters" brought art down to your level, which is to say they destroyed it.

shalom.

You didn't put forward any argument brainlet, only circular and self contradictory reasoning (tradition is good because it is tradition and tradition said so) and badly portrayed projected strawmen (you can imagine yourself slapping some paints onto a canvas without bothering to make them reallylook like anything).
>Realists
Please tell me you didn't actually use this word. Have you even ever been to an art show more than twice in your life? Have you ever been to the Uffizi or to the cappella Sistina you dumb manchild?

do fuck off

me like beauty me like when painting make me feel all warm and fuzzy in the stomach OwO

what's it like, looking in from outside?

>Realists
It's the appropriate term, because they make Real art, not Modern "art"

Tradition is important to art because it comes from study of art. Hundreds of years of artists studying previous art and continually finding out more about what beauty is and how it works. Abandoning tradition and saying that you are looking for beauty is like throwing away a map and saying that it will help you find your destination.

>Abandoning tradition and saying that you are looking for beauty is like throwing away a map and saying that it will help you find your destination.
wtf I hate the romantics now

Anyway, this is quickly disproved by looking at history: the impressionists were vastly superior to their neo-classicists contemporaries. Same thing for Van Gogh.
>what beauty is and how it works.
Again with this "beauty" word. Read some Aesthetic anytime soon (or go jerk off to Bouguereau's shit, your call).

>Anyway, this is quickly disproved by looking at history: the impressionists were vastly superior to their neo-classicists contemporaries.
but that doesn't disprove anything. it's a hilarious claim, and a strawman at that.

>It's an hilarious claim
You're proving how little you understand about history with each and every post. It's a commonly held opinion between critics, even the most conservative ones. The impressionists were geniuses, the neo-classicists were bland imitators sans some exception (Bernini).
>A strawman
wot?

>the impressionists were vastly superior to their neo-classicists contemporaries.
this is like saying that it's superior to wear glasses with the wrong prescription. it might be pretty or "make you look at the world differently" but just as those glasses wouldn't allow you to see the world clearly, impressionism doesn't allow you to see aesthetic forms clearly.

At least impressionists were painting something that they could see, though. After them nobody is even trying to paint what they can see, so it's no surprise that their paintings are not good to look at.

total, utter bollocks & strawman.

>this is like saying that it's superior to wear glasses with the wrong prescription. it might be pretty or "make you look at the world differently" but just as those glasses wouldn't allow you to see the world clearly, impressionism doesn't allow you to see aesthetic forms clearly.
According to your own incredibly stupid framework photorealism is the best form of art. I hope you (and everyone else who is reading this thread right now) realize how stupid that sounds. Also name 3 good neo-classical artists who were superior to the impressionists, I want to have a laugh.
>At least impressionists were painting something that they could see, though. After them nobody is even trying to paint what they can see, so it's no surprise that their paintings are not good to look at.
Ignominious. Aesthetic experience is not predicated on mimesis you dense imbecile.

You also didn't tell me how my earlier post was a strawman.

>the neo-classicists were bland imitators
you are the worst type of person

It's true though. The neo-classicists at the time of impressionism were soulless academic bugs who went to Italy and thought "wow so cool mang" and subsequently gave us the most inane shit in art history like the oath of the horathii.

the bit where you use impressionism (and van gogh!) vs neo-classicism to defend your shitty point that beauty, order and harmony is desirable only for primitives.

>According to your own incredibly stupid framework photorealism is the best form of art.
Photorealism would be the best form of art if the subject matter was chosen properly, i.e. was drawn from tradition. Unfortunately even painters who are very skilled at accurately recording the world on canvas have suffered from the modernist redefinition of art, since now they seem to paint only banal commonplace objects or scenes which might as well be photographed. If the same painters had studied the work of previous artists, instead of just gazing out of the window absent-mindedly as they are encouraged to do by frauds like Klein, they would have learnt about the importance of choosing your subject.

yet another strawman. you're shit at arguing. who gives a shit about neo-classicists in this context when you can make this point here, which is even older art vs even newer more modern art (than neo-classicism vs impressionism).

How is it a strawman? You're arguing that muh tradishun makes an object of art inherently better and the confrontation between Van Gogh and a random academic painter of that time completely disproves that statement.
>Photorealism would be the best form of art if the subject matter was chosen properly
What can I say, enjoy your endless soulless imitations of the Greeks and the Renaissance Italians, I guess.
>since now they seem to paint only banal commonplace objects or scenes
Are you implying that banal or everyday life scenes are bad for art? Holy shit guess it's to burn all the Caravaggio's and all the still lives then.

Caravaggio is my favourite painter btw and I regularly go to see his paintings as well (an hint: he was very revolutionary for his time. Whereas more tradishunal painters used to paint only perfect faces because of muh beauty he took inspiration from common people. He also made up his own way of painting with light). I like the other painting just as well though.

you've moved the goalposts now, it's not about tradition.

Your posts seem to imply otherwise.
>Inb4 it's about muh perfect mimesis
For the third time: Van Gogh.

>endless soulless imitations
You don't seem to grasp the point of development in art, which is to observe and yes, imitate, but also exceed, those forms which are aesthetically pleasing. It is modern artists who are soulless, because they are obsessed with trying to visualise things which are inherently conceptual, an endeavour which fails for obvious reasons.

Once again: a quick lock to a Van Gogh completely disproves your point.
Development in art doesn't exist (don't make me post Piero della Francesca again pls). It existed in Renaissance Italy through the progressive betterment of perspective, I'll give you that, but there's much more to those painters than perspective. Why do you think the 600 is so inferior compared to the 500 and the 400 in Italy artistic wise?

You have very confused ideas about art, I suggest you pick up an history book and start reading. Also try to attend some art shows and go see things IRL because you clearly don't.

>a quick lock to a Van Gogh completely disproves your point.
Van Gogh was psychotic and much of his artwork is honestly attempting to capture how he viewed the world, and at least he wasn't trying to prove that the canvas is flat like generations of modernists after him.

...

...

...