How True Is This Image?

>art
>subjective
holy fucking SHIT this INSECURITY

Can we talk about Arnie?

>That's subjective!
Mistakes of the subhumans. They immediately interpret the idea of subjectivity as giving them free reign to support any viewpoint that they want, no matter how incoherent, ignorant and wretched. Sure, the ant too has its own perspective of things, and therefore its own subjective reality, but who gives a shit about the reality of an ant? The greater the man the greater — and hence the more objective — his perspective, and therefore the idea of subjectivity does not undermine the absolute rule of inequality in the universe but is precisely the mechanism by which it comes about.

"Everything is subjective" means that everything can be perceived from a variety of perspectives — indeed an infinity of them — it doesn't mean that all perspectives are equal. From the plurality of subjects it by no means follows that all subjects are equal! But that is precisely what the subhumans contend. With a terrifying consistency they take the idea from the philosophers and utterly pervert it, until it comes to mean the exact opposite to what it meant at first. For if all viewpoints were indeed equal they would have to be identical! i.e. there would not be an infinity of viewpoints but only a single one! i.e. there would not be subjectivity!

That said, OP's list is inconsistent garbage, that makes Nazi aesthetics seem logical.

>music
>mozart

I didn't say 'everything is subjective.' I said 'art is subjective.'

You cannot apply scientific truth to art, outside of appreciating the geometry of a painting or the mathematics of a Beethoven composition and if you're judging art by that kind of criteria then I would argue that you're entirely missing the point.

I understand that you're in your early 20s, just exploring Nietzsche's philosophy for the first time, but you're probably going to want to resist the urge to copy/paste quotes on the internet until understanding of what he means settles in.

>make a career in part by abusing roids
>have a body building competition in your name where everyone is roiding
>publicly denounce steroids
>talk shit about people who use them

Not him but TASTE in art is subjective
The QUALITY of the art itself ALWAYS has objective parameters, no matter how much you don't care for them.
>judging art by that kind of criteria
Well what criteria do you judge it by then?
If you're judging it at all with any criteria you're being contradictory or doing it for no real sake.
If you can just end every judgement with "But hey folks, that's just my subjective opinion right hahah lets not have discourse about it", which is incredibly flaccid and meaningless. see: reddit.

To add, if a piece of art is objectively bad and you know it is such that doesn't stop you from enjoying it.
The opposite is also true.
Making peace with your taste is patrician.

>I didn't say 'everything is subjective.' I said 'art is subjective.'
Then substitute 'art' for 'everything' and read my post twice over again, since you didn't address anything that was said in it.

And once you've done so, take a minute to reflect on the fact no one else but yourself has mentioned science ITT, and that aesthetic scholarship in academia is not part of the science faculties. Also take a minute to reflect on the fact that making personal attacks in which you pretend to know more about the thing someone else is actually quoting is unlikely to be convincing, nevermind effective

>Malick
>DUDE GRASS LMAO
kino

>film
Lord, I'm dying. Why don't you put video games nex time too?

What happens as works become more complex, both in terms of technology and number of artists involved, is that the artwork becomes more of a collective effort. So whereas a painting is the result of the work of its author, as well as the few people who made the brushes, paints, canvas, etc., and the other few who invented the techniques of manufacturing of all these things, a movie is the result of the work of an astonishing number of individuals including a Newton, a Faraday, a Maxwell, an Edison, and so on and so forth — not to speak of a videogame, which includes also a Leibniz, a Boole, a Tesla, a Turing, a von Neumann, and ultimately the entire of line of scientists and inventors leading up to them. The pseudo-intellectuals never manage to get past this laughable conundrum, and by the constant stream of lies, absurdities and stupidities they vomit (all of which of course they take great care, by camouflaging them in obscurantist prose, to pass off to the feebleminded as profundity), they drag the mystified rabble down with them: "photography/cinema/videogames are not art; only primitive artforms are art" .

He also won several strongman competitions or something right?

verbose, but well said

You really think the literacy on here is high enough for subtlety/minimalism?

Thank you.
Typing out 2500 character responses is the only way to insure that you don't spend all day responding to misunderstandings.

fixed

Wittgenstein ending philosophy is a complete may-may.

It could at least have Hegel or Rorty or something - at least some internet forum autists will agree.

yeah but strength and fitness are two different things. Arnie looked good but he used steroids and was probably not in as good health as somebody with less muscle that had a stronger adherence to healthy living.

What are the objective parameters to assess art quality?

. . .

Well, Malick is correct so it has that going for it

jack sparrow

>visual art being called just art, as if literature, film and music can't be art

this is what got me the most, but the whole image is one giant meme

A better list would have been nabokov, hegel, bach, (don't really know enough about film), fucking every painter other than warhol would have been a better pick, and last but not least obviously zyzz

>scientific truth
you're like a little baby who don't understand the words he's saying even if I get your point

Beethoven is better than Mozart

If "quality" has nothing to do with enjoyment then why should we care about it?

if all perspectives are not equal, what determines this? you accept there are many ways to look at something, but why is it that one way of looking at something is better than another

god bless

Personally found Joyce to be a bit of a wanker. His ideas are mediocre, the revolutionary writing style doesn't actually mean it's good writing.

There is a happy medium between Romanticism and Modernism writing techniques.

>who
>who
>no
>no
>hahahahahahaha
>no

Oh I'm cackling like a madman at this. The fucking furry picture it gets my every time, I wasn't expecting this at all.

>>who
>>who
how can you be so clueless

>wittgenstein
>malick
>fitness
hell of a meme

>music

To anyone who knows the slightest thing about musical history and in particular that of piano this is so much bullshit

Whoever made this should kill themselves and do it hard

>implying the aesthetics of the body do not belong in the same league as the aesthetics of music or the written word

had a go

DFW - nothing has beat infinite jest since, despite it's meme status
Marx - The damage has been done :^)
Stravinsky - last great composer
Tarkovsky - last great director
M. Duchamp - his 'Fountain' ruined art forever
Don't care about fitness

Friendly reminder that OP's image is entirely correct and only Music and Film is questionable.

Scatman Joyce.

It is laughably untrue.

If we ignore the fact that this whole exercise is pointless, this is probably the most accurate so far. However, Mason & Dixon by Thomas Pynchon is a year younger than Infinite Jest, and is of comparable quality.
I would argue for minimalist composers after Stravinsky; you should certainly value John Cage if you value Duchamp.
I don't know a lot about cinema but putting Tarkovsky there doesn't seem so deluded.

As for fitness, acquiring a lot of muscle mass isn't the most attractive form for the male body, pic related is.

>All these retards that don't understand the image

It's about ENDING the GAME, as in, rendering the field no longer climbable.

>Philosophy not pic related

>mozart
>ended the game in his field
wow your life must be boring af

I only recognize Beethoven and Arnie

>le classic meme music
Fuck off grandpa

t. underage

?

To separate plebeians (you) from patricians (me)

Depends what medium you're talking about

>Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Neuroscience existed when Descartes was writing
Kek

>Descartes was a solipsist
haha
Good one bro.

>Art Critics rank art like DBZ Power Levels
lol
I actually wish this were true so I would read some art criticism. Alas this is ripped - fully formed - from your ass.

Well played

Literature: Finnegans Wake
Music: Second Viennese School

Pretty much true for lit and philosophy, the other shit is too subjective to give a serious answer.

0/6
6/6. Good job, you got it right.

Hey icycalm

>mediocre
Okay nu-pol you can go back to r9k now

>Why don't you put video games nex time too?

OK.

>Warhol

Pretty good. Replace Wittgenstein with Marx and Coppola with Tarkovsky.

Warhol is an utter hack though.

>nu-pol
Gonna use that! Thanx.

being a feminine little twinky kid is NOT the most aesthetic form of the male body

t. Has never listened to classical besides "dude this is old as fuck lmao"

Also, Bach is the correct answer, not Mozart

Wittsy didn't completely kill philosophy but he left it in a coma

It is, femininity is superior to traditional masculinity. You're deluded if you think otherwise.

that kid looks so much like a woman id consider raping it