Why does this guy criticize conceptual art for being ugly so much, when he himself is ugly as sin?

taste is the enemy of art

>taste is the enemy of art

Attached: 1495749036313.png (449x471, 243K)

damn, did he die?

Scruton is Chad as fuck

youtube.com/watch?v=xoybTk6TEX4

Scruton is proto-Peterson

where do all these alt-right idiots keep coming from

Having a wife is not an achievement. Having a beautiful wife is.

damn! childless, boyfucking continental philosophers btfo for eternity

Going by his daughter his wife must have been a looker in her day

It's the tale of all critics. Film critics for example expect a perfect movie despite being incapable of creating one of their own.
Have you ever gotten an idea, thought it was the greatest thing ever, then got down to actually create it only to find that the result was a laughable attempt to create that perfect concept in your mind? All you can do is compare your miserable attempt to create something beautiful to the expectation of actually creating it. That is the life of the critic.

It has made yet another thread about him. Why is it obsessed with this man so much? Why has it made several threads about this old man? What is it about this man that produces so much feminine passive-agressive anger?

this is correct

Sexual arousal most likely

Good post

Damn i'd actually fuck that daughter of his

>everyone i don't like is alt-right
Scruton has been doing this since the 80's you tard

Isn't Scruton pretty continental himself? He's inspired by Hegel, who isn't really liked by continentals.

isn't really liked by analytics* i meant

He definately is, but don't mind the brainlet

>Why does this guy criticize conceptual art for being ugly so much, when he himself is ugly as sin?
the same reason why I know what the fuck a maxilla is

Thanks, had a good laugh

Scruton caused some serious fucking butthurt back in the 80's when he btfo all those leftist thinkers. Well joke's on them, because the USSR is dead now.

Too bad he sold out to the tobacco industry.

>there is beauty in all things

Attached: 1521144878795.jpg (645x756, 182K)

He doesn't understand aesthetics.

why do you think that?

Whiteman was analytic you retard.

Who does?

but certainly not in your ms paint drawings

he thinks
>le ugly
Is negative.
He wants to see pretty ladies with big boobies and dogs

>mine

Attached: 1520576413363.png (700x592, 17K)

Guess the christians on this board aren't graced by God then because all I keep seeing is neoclassical trash

>the USSR
>supporting conceptual art

LOL

go back to /pol/ ideologue

And why do you think ugliness isn't negative?

Because I'm not an aesthetically illiterate retard.

>all i see

Attached: 1516846007895.jpg (493x345, 32K)

So you think that something ugly or malformed like pic related isn't a bad thing?

Attached: kill me.jpg (768x1024, 81K)

le edgy ecksdee

There's nothing edgy about it. You said that ugliness isn't a negative. I gave you something ugly and now ask you whether you think his malformation isn't a negative.

OOOOOOoooooh man, what level of Bloodborne is that from

>a person is just like art!
Oh look, you actually just don't understand art on a metaaesthetic level. kys

Why'd you have to go and let it live.

yep

He has a point, if it horrifies us to see humans like that why do we allow our world to be grotesque

So ugliness is a negative when we're dealing with people, but suddenly it's not an issue when we're dealing with art? Please explain, user.

>horror is bad
Fuck off back to plebbit, you illiterate retard.

The Romans thought it was a moral obligation to kill a baby like that, but we think it's a moral obligation to let it live.

Attached: 1365252950544.jpg (251x242, 14K)

MUH WHITE CIVVYLIZASHUN ROW-MANS KILL LE NIGGER

Do you also purposefully eat shit to prove that something tasting bad isn't a negative thing? Taste is a part of aesthetics too, after all.

Look guys, a redditor.

>overreacting this hard after someone states a historic fact

Attached: 1521234306617.png (399x322, 42K)

MUH WHITE NIGGER KILLING FAX

Imagine actually writing this. Imagine writing this and thinking that it's clever.

You could've just answered the question here and none of this would've happened, redditor.

Imagine being this many posts deep and not having an argument

idiot

legitimate question OP.

ugly people wants beautiful art. they want to live in a delusion, i guess.

>tfw you're such an ugly pig that you think beauty itself is oppressive

Attached: andrea-dworkin-38425-1-402.jpg (300x300, 9K)

Is that what he thinks? But ugliness IS antithetical to art, it just so happens that we don't all find the same things ugly. When art represents something "ugly" it is being elevated outside of the realm of the ugly and into the realm of the beautiful, by the artist at the very least, and for anyone who enjoys the work.

everyone named Dworkin is cancer

Attached: Ronald_Dworkin_at_the_Brooklyn_Book_Festival.jpg (220x293, 17K)

ye

No. Everything is equally valid.

Aesthetics are subjective. I think Andrea is kind of cute.

>He wants to see pretty ladies with big boobies and dogs

Sounds perfectly reasonable

Not that user, but ugliness can be useful in creating contrast. Think about fairy tales — the ugly step-sister/mother trope is effective precisely because of the hag's ugliness. It serves as a foil to the beautiful and righteous heroine, and works as visual shorthand for evil. It's the same principle which photographers use when they contrast light with shadow. Saying "ugliness is (always, or even usually) bad" is like saying "darkness is (always or usually) bad" — it rules out many masterpieces of art that work because of contrast.

>tl;dr — careful use of ugly elements is good for underscoring beauty, so ugliness is at least sometimes good for a work of art.

Attached: mxYpcZ3.png (311x308, 132K)

I can see that, but why then would art need to be ugly in itself? If you have a beautiful piece of architecture, then wouldn't the contrast with its inferior surroundings be enough to establish the value of beauty?

What i understand is that Scruton detests how art is itself now becoming ugly, when in the past it was one of the few expressions of beauty in an ugly world.

he's a literal brainlet
only cancervatards take him seriously
why right-wing people can't just die tbqh

He's ugly in an aesthetic manner.

Some art —especially the conceptual gallery-art Scruton rails against — is created to test how effectively the artist can do something, rather than be taken as "complete" (the way a film, novel, etc. would). Sketches & color studies are often done only to see if we can get "the right kind of square" or "the right shade of brown;" after these preliminaries are finished, an artist can incorporate his findings into a more "complete" piece (in the case of sketches and color studies, this would be a full-scale painting). Likewise, an "ugliness study" might be an artist's attempt to develop a particular intensity or style of ugliness. Once that study has been done, the artist can incorporate its findings into their "complete" works.

A recent development for academic artists has been a trend towards emphasizing these studies over producing the so-called "complete" pieces like paintings. There are tons of systemic reasons for this — galleries pushing for innovation and novelty, art scholars focusing largely on aesthetic theory and influence, and so on — but there's also an argument to be made that the studies are actually more important than the "complete" artworks, because they expand the range of expressible things.

Think of it like the difference between science and engineering — engineers make things for the layperson to use; scientists discover things that engineers may or may not use. Academic artists are starting to operate more like scientists. There's a debate to be had, but Scruton won't engage honestly with it.

Attached: 1513722780515.png (820x1386, 1.13M)

>Some art —especially the conceptual gallery-art Scruton rails against — is created to test how effectively the artist can do something, rather than be taken as "complete" (the way a film, novel, etc. would). Sketches & color studies are often done only to see if we can get "the right kind of square" or "the right shade of brown;" after these preliminaries are finished, an artist can incorporate his findings into a more "complete" piece (in the case of sketches and color studies, this would be a full-scale painting). Likewise, an "ugliness study" might be an artist's attempt to develop a particular intensity or style of ugliness. Once that study has been done, the artist can incorporate its findings into their "complete" works.

What the fuck are you on about, are you just literally making this shit up as you go along?

Nah, I took a class on art from 1980-2010 last Fall. I'm basically paraphrasing a lecture my professor gave.

Attached: 1510412757274.jpg (1034x545, 273K)

Sounds like horseshit, you got bamboozled user

>There's a debate to be had, but Scruton won't engage honestly with it.

That's because he believes that the purpose of art isn't to engage in studies or to expand the range of expression, but to form an essentially religious expression. To emphasize on things like studies and theory is to completely miss the point of art, and likewise won't produce great art. It's like how Celine just started writing with no regard for the field of literary studies, but he still became one of the greatest french writers of the 20th century, simply because of his talent and skill.

post meant for

MUH BEAUTY WAAAAAAAAAAA

Attached: 260px-The_Scream.jpg (260x331, 32K)

Beauty is pretty important in aesthetics senpai

Nope. Refer to the painting I posted.

Beauty means more than "makes me happy when I look at it"

but it's beautiful

Attached: 1410368660813.jpg (476x600, 204K)

"Conceptual art" as you so graciously call it falls into the category of degenerate non-art. It is borne by a cosmopolitan mindset which desires to do away with all boundaries including moral ones. It champions relativism and thus wishes to reject the boundaries between good and evil, beauty and ugliness, propriety and impropriety, etc.
And to achieve this, many artists have actively sought to invert values: to create "art" that is deliberately ugly, provocative, obscene, worthless.
What I have said here applies to the most notable works of this form of so-called art. But the truth is that the overwhelming majority of output is banal to the point of irrelevance and (thankfully) to the dustbin of history. All conceptual "art" is superficial and has outstayed its welcome the moment it is first exhibited.

You are the enemy of taste. Art without taste is worthless. In fact it is not art, when properly defined as an act of creation guided by an aesthetic ideal of beauty. There is no good aesthetic without taste, only fumbling smudging in the dark.
It's this kind of attitude that leads to the basest acts imaginable, and justification for even worse, still.
(NSFW)
youtube.com/watch?v=wRM_Wyj7elI
youtube.com/watch?v=ZiyfDaHMhBY
youtube.com/watch?v=EncR_T0faKM
youtube.com/watch?v=-gKkh7-wA0E

I was wondering whether Liam Gillick really warranted a whole week of classes. Pic related is one of the artworks the prof. referred to as "a lot like a color study." We spent several hours discussing the ways in which it added to the pool of tools artists can use.
>weather-sensitive
>to be enjoyed indirectly
>color combination was controversial at the time
Can't remember much else because I didn't take the best notes, but it was an odd discussion.

I'd argue that theory is still worthwhile. One of the chapters in Ulysses is three characters trading theories about Shakespeare, and the climax of The Trial is two characters debating the moral of a parable. Even Borges got in on theory with his "Author of the Quixote" short story. Of course, an author doesn't need to overtly include literary theory in his work for it to be rich, but inviting the reader to theorize is a great way to provoke both thought and emotion.

Attached: Liam_Gillick_Buch_LUP_167_256_5GILLICK-122.jpg (394x502, 39K)

Nope. You're conflating "beauty" with the aestetich.

aesthetic*

>Art without taste is worthless.
Yeah I agree. We should really burn the oath of the horatii

I'm not saying that theory is useless, but i think the emphasis of theorizing has taken the 'soul' out of art. It's like how you can theorize endlessly about comedy, but at the end of the day that's not going to make something any more funny.

Could anyone give any real criticism on why Scruton is supposedly crap? Because unlike meme philosophers like Pinker or Harris, Scruton actually knows quite a lot about aesthetics and had a significant impact on the philosophy of aesthetics.

Attached: 1510066217311.jpg (570x691, 51K)

He's crap because he's not left wing apparently.

But theory about comedy *does* make things funnier. A close friend of mine took a stand-up class, and he let me borrow the textbook afterwards. There were some great tips.
>make the punchline as short as possible
>omit any details that aren't relevant to the punchline and/or theme of the anecdote
>use body language, gestures, and intonation to underscore the mood you're trying to set
>all the rules of drama apply to comedy
Made me better at telling jokes to be desu with you.

Attached: 17436044_1152657161512610_1268994895665697779_o.png (850x1134, 911K)

Yeah i get that's why he's controversial, but i'm talking about his work on aesthetics especially.

But did you find other peoples jokes funnier after reading the book?

>But theory about comedy *does* make things funnier.

It really doesn't