Art for art's sake

>The elimination or crossbreeding of categories is a negation of life
>the category of ethics is actually in the category of politics
>the category of intent is actually in the category of politics
>the category of intent is in the category of politics
>art is its own category, therefore it cannot be discussed with ethics, intent, or meaning
>therefore any criticism that engages art that is in the category of ethics, intent, or meaning should be eliminated
>I haven't contradicted myself by inherently combining the categories of ethics, intent, and meaning with that of politics
>art its own category, cannot be a part of, or even overlap with the category of politics
>I have no justification for this and will deny any conversation about it, due to my belief that categories cannot intermingle.

You misunderstand me. A category being a subset of another one doesn't mean the subset and superset share exactly the same rules; science is a subset of philosophy, for example, but scientists and philosophers do not operate under the same rules when they conduct science or philosophize. The conditions which make members of the subset prosper are different from the conditions which make members of the superset prosper, meaning that a division between the two has to be recognized. When there is no division recognized, this is what I mean by an illegitimate crossbreeding of categories.

Also, when people claim that because the subsets are subsets, i.e. extensions of the superset, the superset is ultimately all there is, this typically leads to an advocation of the elimination of the subsets. Strictly speaking, that is true, but it does us no favors in life to constantly adhere to the superset (truth): to adhere entirely to the superset is to cease possible discussion of the subsets and that makes it a particular negation of life.

My point is, you don't really have one. Artists don't often think there is a political foundation to their work; but they MUST think that to create art. More importantly, the political foundation lies in the subconscious, sometimes even in the unconscious, often far away from their conscious intentions. What are you attempting to prove by showing them their ignorance? This newfound knowledge, which does nothing to further the subset of life in which they work? This sounds like sabotage, if anything.

Attached: quote-the-lie-is-a-condition-of-life-friedrich-nietzsche-21-46-12.jpg (850x400, 41K)

Dorian Grey is /highschool/core. You just outed yourself as an incorrigible pleb.

Jesus Christ here comes the fucking Icycalm cruzader. Go play Mass Effect and leave art to the grown ups, you purple prose peabrain.

l’art pour l’art is a noble inclination, in practice it reveals itself to be a cheap con artist’s ploy to cum in the eye of humanity
>political
your politics and there’s are ugly, no need for them
>ethics
you aren’t ethical and most artists are decidedly unethic people

>Mass Effect
lol

what does art for at's sake even mean?

Art for arts sake rubs me the wrong guy. This guy in a shitty local band said it about jazz and classical, and it came off like him wanting to invalidate all of their hard work just so he could feel like he was on the forefront of something.

The principles of Aestheticism. Oscar Wilde later tried to return to the Catholic Church as he was dying broken and alone. Vanity is insufficient for life.

the Catholic Church is an evil institute filled with homosexuals and pedophiles, he would have fit in well
>vanity is not enough
it is for straight beautiful people with money

You are the only one here doing what you criticize.

If the political is unconscious, then it is not political.

All of those are correct. Daily reminder that if you are a moralfag you're what's killing academia.

>all art is political as long as you define "political" vaguely enough

READ SCHMITT

Notice how none of the mid-20th century Absurdists/Nihilists were Aestheticists despite both agreeing that life held no meaning or purpose and authenticity was something you made up. Oscar Wilde would have thrown an Elagabalus flower feast in the gas chambers to demonstrate the superiority of art over life, but Camus is just a giant miserable pussy.

Wilde was literally rejected from joining a Jesuit order for being a degenerate.

>If the political is unconscious, then it is not political.
The OP didn't seem like it was suggesting that.

>make politically charged art
>moralize in my art as well
>time goes by
>politics of my age are a relic of history, nobody gives a shit or knows about them
>morals I argued for are irrelevant too, I was probably on "the wrong side of history", because in the meantime cultural standards have changed unpredictably
>now my books can only have aesthetic effect on people
oy vey!

The whole point of The Myth of Sisyphus is going on inspite of meaninglessness.

Fun fact, Camus was out drinking and having affairs on his wife with models and actresses. Pic related.

Attached: 27657226_1842375199119643_1443030923714576392_n.jpg (348x503, 26K)

retard

Didn't he hook up with an 18 year old when he went to New York?

bump

OP is not suggesting it. You (or whoever I was responding to) was suggesting it. There are artists who have overt political intentions. Some art has political implications, regardless of intent. To suggest that discussing the possible political intent or implications of a work are off limits is absurd. For example, how can one possibly discuss either Hogarth or Jacque-Louise David without discussing politics? And although Watteau or Boucher are not overtly political, it is still possible to discuss those works in relationship to the politics of their day.

You are wrong. Camus was not a nihilist. He was not advocating that there was no meaning, nor was he suggesting any way to deal with an inherent meaningless. Rather he suggested that it was not practically possible be certain of any absolute meaning, so in absence of that, one must create meaning for oneself. He further reasoned, especially in Myth of Sisyphus, that this meaning was created by knowing life was absurd and living anyways. The Absurd is not meaningless, but rather the inconceivable. It is the idea our reason is insufficient to determine how to live, not that there is no reason at all.

Bitch bout to get
>GALLICIZED
Whoa, an 18 year old, what a degenerate pervert, who wouldn't want to hook up with busted out 30-something single mothers? You Fucking American.

>so ur telling me i can refute any statement by putting a > infront of it

>OP is not suggesting it.
Not suggesting what? What do you think this line means?

>writers don't have to have political or ethical concerns

This implies that all writers must have these concerns, assumingly while writing. Then you say that if the political is unconscious, it is not political. I agree with that, but this line from the OP seems to assert something different.

>To suggest that discussing the possible political intent or implications of a work are off limits is absurd.
That was never suggested. See

No it doesn't, you fucking miserable dunce, you absolute dreck of deconstructionist trash. You are intellectually dishonest and continuously fail to uphold your end of the debate.

All people have political and ethical concerns. This does not mean that all actions they take are overt political acts. We can talk about the politics of art, because all artists live within a political system, and must have some relationship to that system in order to live. They may be indifferent, they may be subversive, supportive, etc.

Not all categories must be subsets and supersets, and so things may exist in multiple sets simultaneously without contradiction.

You are trying to deny the discussing of art through the lens of politics by contradictory methods. You are simultaneously suggesting that politics is endemic while arguing that it is right to discuss the politics of a work unless the author explicitly has politics in mind, while simultaneously saying that the intent of a work is irrelevant.

The truth is not that you actually think the politics of a work cannot be discussed. Rather you are angling to prevent this conversation from happening in way that does not favor your politics. You are trying to force your view simply by preventing your actual view from being discussed.

I'm tired of this ball and cup philosophical nonsense.

>No it doesn't, you fucking miserable dunce, you absolute dreck of deconstructionist trash. You are intellectually dishonest and continuously fail to uphold your end of the debate.
Hold your horses. Who the fuck are you to fly into a rage like that? And I'm the one being "intellectually dishonest" here. At this point, I fully suspect you have some ulterior motive.

>We can talk about the politics of art, because all artists live within a political system, and must have some relationship to that system in order to live.
Great. I didn't say otherwise. The politics of art is also NOT art, but one aspect of it, which means that the discussion of art is about more than just its surrounding politics (which means art is about more than just the political). My defense against the OP is an attempt to preserve this thought.

>You are simultaneously suggesting that politics is endemic while arguing that it is right to discuss the politics of a work unless the author explicitly has politics in mind, while simultaneously saying that the intent of a work is irrelevant.
Politics, and any subset, BECOMES endemic when someone tries to replace other subsets or the superset with it.

>Rather you are angling to prevent this conversation from happening in way that does not favor your politics.
I have no problem with the politics of art being discussed, but I have a problem with statements which suggest that the politics are of chief importance in art, and there are statements being made like that across many boards lately. So of course as someone who is passionate about art I will become hyperaggressive against these statements. They carry a spiritual inclination that seems devastating to art if adopted at face value and radicalized in discussion.

OP never attacked the thought that there was more to art. He attacked Art for Art's sake, which is suggesting a less inclusive, not more inclusive consideration.

No. You literally just ignored the point that things can belong in multiple categories. Politics is endemic, because we all live in political systems. This means, regardless of intent, every action has a political effect. This does not make everything a political act, explicitly, but does mean that all acts can be viewed legitimately through the lens of politics. It is not a matter of replacing, because things can and do belong to more than one set.

OP never suggested politics alone was of chief importance. But politics and ethics are some of the most important concerns in life.

Furthermore, as you should be very familiar with if you are actually aware of art conversations, it is not uncommon for dissident artists to deny the politics of their work by saying "not all art has to be political," and then defining their work in a way that ignores the overt political implications.

Lastly, if considering the ethical and political in art, and granting those matters a high importance destroys art, then why are the most valuable works of art throughout time those which had overt ethics and politics?

>He attacked Art for Art's sake
9 out of 10 times an attack on this implies a desire to corrupt art. A critic or skeptic musing over the fallacy of such a premise is different, it is an attack then but does not bear the same hostility. The hostility is what indicates the desire to corrupt.

>This means, regardless of intent, every action has a political effect. This does not make everything a political act, explicitly, but does mean that all acts can be viewed legitimately through the lens of politics.
Okay, fine. I don't disagree with this.

>Furthermore, as you should be very familiar with if you are actually aware of art conversations, it is not uncommon for dissident artists to deny the politics of their work by saying "not all art has to be political," and then defining their work in a way that ignores the overt political implications.
Why do you think artists deny that? Because the political is not of primary importance as to why they create. It is hardly of any conscious importance, in fact. They may not understand why, but they are denying it out of instinct, because instinctually they know that if they came to believe that all art has political premises, it would weaken their powerful resolve which affords them their creative capacities. To be an artist one must be to an extent an immoralist.

>why are the most valuable works of art throughout time those which had overt ethics and politics?
Because most are unartistic. I only see works of art valued for their ethical and political aspects by unartistic types.

>Because most people are unartistic, including historians.*

As I suspected, you are an ideological fanatic. Corrupt art according to you. But of course we are not actually ever able to discuss what you think of art, because first we have to trudge through your swamp of illogical surrounding sets, and supersets, and what is or is not endemic.

For fuck's sake, what do you even mean "corrupt" art? You're implying that Art is somehow this pure thing free from any of the constraints of human thought or experience, despite the fact that Art is nothing more than human experience and thought.

On this third issue, you are putting ideas in the artists heads. You have now crossed the line you have said others cannot cross. How do you know that is why they say what they say?

You must not know much about art.

I broke up with a girl for saying art doesn't have to be beautiful

Define beauty.

>intelligence as a character trait

Attached: disgruntled pepe.jpg (1337x1289, 53K)

>For fuck's sake, what do you even mean "corrupt" art?
I basically explained what that means later in the post when I mentioned how creativity in the artist works and how it is weakened when it no longer believes in its own completeness. To believe in that, it must not always look favorably towards society.

>How do you know that is why they say what they say?
Because I know how the creative process works.

Can't be done in a Veeky Forums post, but basically a property that causes pleasure or satisfaction to the senses.

OP Here I'm glad I made this thread.

From where does this satisfaction stem? Why are some things pleasing to the senses and not others? If tastes can change does the pleasure lie in the thing itself, or in one's relationship to the thing?

No you didn't. Many artists have overt political intentions. Are you really suggesting that they are not making art? You are not a creative person, so on what basis are you describing how creativity works? Your explanation doesn't follow any established research into. Have you done your own research? Or are you rather, as it would appear, defining creativity as you wish so that you can define Art in a way that suits your purposes? I mean, how can creativity believe or not believe in its own completeness? You are speaking nonsense.

What you are really suggesting is that art that speaks against the structures you don't like can't be criticized for doing so, no matter the intent of the artist, because to do so would destroy all art. Just stop, before you hurt yourself and others.

Personally I believe beauty is a divine gift. God "adorned the heavens" with stars meant to be beautiful. There is no denying a flower is beautiful. We find well composed music to be beautiful, but music out of key not to be.
Tastes can change, but beauty is for the most part objective. One person can prefer a violet another prefers roses, but both are beautiful.

Please don't misunderstand me to be saying that beauty is the *only* thing that makes art, but it is one criteria.

>Are you really suggesting that they are not making art?
They can still be making art — but those intentions are not alone what goes into the creative process and what defines the resulting creation as art... anyone with a serious passion for the arts knows this. Why else, then, does Icycalm call Gunvalkyrie, SimCity, Kick Off, Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun, Planetary Annihilation, Phantasmagoria, Sonic the Hedgehog, Rust, Power Stone, Mushihime-same, etc. art? Do you have any clue at all why? Do you care at all? If you don't, then you don't fucking care about art, dude, end of story.

You have yet to explain beauty though. Where does the beauty reside? What is it? Saying that it comes from God is not particularly meaningful. If you believe in God, then everything that does not come directly from Man comes from God. Some flowers are beautiful, but not all flowers are beautiful. You are saying beauty is objective, but not actually proscribing any parameters. You also follow this by saying that beauty is not only subjective, but pluralist, in that if someone finds it beautiful, then it must be beautiful.

To be fair, I don't think you actually hold all these opinions, but I do think your position has not been well thought out, and you are confused in your thinking.

I am an artist. This is a straw man. You are refuting something I never argued. As I said before--stop.

>I am an artist.
You are an idiot with no argument. Fuck off.

Maybe you are right. But I know when I find something beautiful and if something isn't beautiful, to me it isn't good art. That's where we differed. She didn't think you had to find any beauty in something for it to be good art and that art is more of a medium to express some idea.

What do you think beauty is and where it stems from?

creating our own meaning, as opposed to being subjected to forces outside our control. identifiers such as birth, race, gender...rather these are all meaningless? at least in the individual's perspective, the collective will always see what is familiar as good and unfamiliar as a challenge

gogol operated in a similar approach; the nose and the overcoat are some of my favorite absurd stories

No. He does not say those things are meaningless. He says we cannot be certain of their meaning, so must find meaning for ourselves in facing and accepting the lack of certainty. Your views on the collective are unfounded. You are a Marxist trying to force your collective nihilism onto everything that seems like it could be useful to your cause.

But if beauty is objective, then you are wrong. How do you know your perception of beauty is right, in that if something is inherently beautiful, how do you know that you can properly recognize it.

Likewise, if she like art that she wouldn't call beautiful, your definition would mean that it is still beautiful, after all, she likes it, it givers her pleasure and satisfaction to the senses.

I believe that something is beautiful to the extent that it is good. And something is good to the extent that the world is made better by it. And you measure the betterment of the world not by pleasure but in communion with God.

Wow, there bro. Who are you to say who is and isn't an artist?

>If the political is unconscious, then it is not political.
>Only complete intentionality can be understood as affecting public attitude towards society
Horrible post

I didn't say he isn't an artist. Idiots can be artists too, and most artists are idiots.

>if some art is apolitical then all political readings are evil

But it doesn't give pleasure or satisfaction to her senses, unless you consider the ego to be a sense.

Rad. Does that change the fact that you lost the argument and made a massive ass out of yourself in the process?

wowee I've sure never been accused of being a marxist before, considering i haven't properly read marx. is it possible to adhere to an ideology without being exposed to its founder's manifesto? probably.

you're right though i misspoke about his approach to meaning; but he's being certain about his uncertainty, right? isn't that just another iteration of 'the only thing i don't know is that i don't know'

>isn't that just another iteration of "the only thing I know is that I know nothing"
And? He's not making that case, but rather taking it for granted. What he intends is a practical solution to this problem--face the absurd--live anyway.

If I lost the argument, then why are you calling me an ass?

If you're this guy then no wonder you and I are at odds. We are complete opposites.

We're not at odds, and we're not opposites. I'm just asking that if you are going to hold a firm stance, that you make sure it is rigorous.

welcome to Veeky Forums

I'm not the guy talking to you about beauty. I'm the "cruzader."

Art for art's sake is fine and good, but most of the time it is actually art for the artist's sake.

wow. you really need to work on your logic.

Insightful post, thanks.

The apex of pleb is probably the demand that every form of art or media you consume hugboxes and brainwashes you into some ideology or worldview so that you never have to think for yourself about anything.

>dorian grey
>big boy words
pleb

this should be a banner.

Yes, and?

>this should be a banner

If you didn't lose the argument, why didn't you provide a counter?