Did irony ruin art?

And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate

overrated bands thread?

Yes.

It ruined art until memes were invented

>Not "Artsy shit"

He had one chance

DER JUDEN

independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

>not the Illuminati

It's an incredibly memetic aesthetic, but not on the level of say, Romantacism or Realism. So no.

Artists thinking they're better philosophers than they are certainly grievously wounded it.

Art is retarded because if I shit in a can and sealed it exactly the same way it wouldnt be worth anything

Yet if I replicated a plane ir a house or a table it would be worth a similar amount

>is de jus fault i like male girls and anime
What did you mean by this?

The internet destroyed western culture.

Before internet:
>be attracted to toasters
>eventually stop being a retard and grow up to be a normal human being

With internet:
>be attracted to toasters
>find other people who are attracted to toasters and never grow up

I prefer floor tiles

WW1 ruined everything and made memes like Duchamp and Dada possible

I have come to believe that a great teacher is a great artist and that there are as few as there are any other great artists. Teaching might even be the greatest of the arts since the medium is the human mind and spirit.

John Steinbeck

What?

...

>>eventually stop being a retard and grow up to be a normal human being
More like
>Learn to repress yourself for the sake of conformity and ignore the weird neurosis that comes from many years of lying to yourself

technology only helps us become more like ourselves

being yourself isn't an inherently positive thing though.

I never said it was. Whatever that can be used liberate can also be used to oppress.

t. I have never read anything by Adorno in my entire life

nigga how bout you adorn deez nuts

The only component of irony that "ruined" art was people massively misinterpreting things.

Instead of people learning to not assume things are automatically correct simply because an "authority" figure said so, and to not ascribe authority to things like scholars and artists without ensuring those scholars and artists actually know what they are talking about, everyone turned into a massive cynic who believes that no one ever knows what they are talking about (except, of course, for themselves). Nothing can be "good" and nothing can be "authentic".

What peopled decided was that only when a work contains absolutely none of the assumptions, thoughts, tropes, or clichés of the past--or if it's a scalding critique of those things--can something be considered "real" or "genuine". Everything else is selling-out, buying-in, ripping-off, or just plan uninspired and untalented.

So, what you got was a reaction from artists, and people attempting to create art, to eschew by all means necessary anything that remotely resembled what had been done before. Which is why there was a lot of surreal shit and a lot of absurdity (like a can of "Artist's Shit"). It's doing it's best to be original AND critique the past simultaneously, which obviously means is automatically good (you try to figure out where being a contrarian as a reaction turns into assuming everything that is contrary is good, because I can only think "ego").

This is also why we see such an obsession with things like "genre deconstruction", despite the fact that everything which has attempted to purposefully deconstruct a genre is objectively garbage.

>be more like ourselves

The concept of an absolute self is a lie, "ourselves" is an even bigger one. "You" are a malleable, transient collection of taught/learned reactions helping the automatic functions of your body interact with the external world. If "you" change, you aren't suddenly "!you". If that's how it works, you've been at several entirely different people in your life simply because you've aged away from being an infant, toddler, grade schooler, etc.

You can't become more like yourself. You can't become less like yourself. You have an expectation of how you'd like to react to things, or a desire to hold certain reactions to certain stimuli. That desired or expectations is a learned response caused by the stimuli/reaction bridge between the external world and your conscious brain (external stimuli-->unconscious brain-->frontal lobe-->conscious action). When you don't react the way you'd expect, or you attempt to react differently than what you've already learned or have been taught, you experience anxiety because the automatic portions of your brain that made you react that way in the first place are now confused. The entire process of holding onto that and attempting to correct that anxiety is just a function of your "ego" attempting to protect you from external emotional stimuli that would leave you unstable.

In otherwords, if you believe in something like "this is who I am!", you need to get over yourself.

Is there a non-positivist way to argue this point?

suppose you're at a restaurant and you order your favorite menu item. you sit down to eat and take a bite but it just doesn't taste as good as usual. you take another bite and again, something's off. then you look over at the guy across from you at the other table and you notice that his food looks really good. great even. so you get up to ask him what he ordered but right when you open your mouth to speak you realize something. your meal doesn't exist. the restaraunt doesn't exist and has ever existed. all this time you've been sitting alone in your house eating warmed up cans of campbells.

Capitalism ruined art

most great historical art has been commissioned by the wealthy though

The whole patronage system declined with capitalism though, so you're just proving my point further.

If Satan was responsible for the death of Christ then isn't he also responsible for the redemption of humanity? Makes u think.

It is precisely the transient and impermanent nature of "self" which allows us to make these sort of alterations in the first place.

As technology takes the drudgery out of our lives we can devote a greater and greater portion of our resources towards personal enrichment. This isn't necessarily a good thing, it can lead to activism for the wrong reasons, it can lead to people supporting radical revisions to society's structure which may not be well thought out, it can lead to demagoguery and social unrest as people's needs rise in complexity to reflect the ever changing circumstances of reality.

Take iron metallurgy for example: now that every scrap of metal in your society isn't precious you don't need the protection of a warrior elite specifically trained in the narrow specialization of heavy charioteer, you can rely on a standing army of commoners armed with comparatively high quality equipment. However, widespread iron also makes chains, shackles, cages, and gaol cells possible, and made it easier for the remaining social classes to oppress and exploit the lower ones.

The point is, technology changes the circumstances of human society, and societies rise and fall based on their ability to anticipate and adapt to these sort of changes.

>Not the Catholic Church

There were different reactions. Cubism (through to the later 'pure' Greenbergian formalism of the Abstract Expressionists) didn't try to eschew anything remotely resembling past works. Subjects for Cubists were still lives, portraits, landscapes -- all subjects taught and exhibited by the Academies. And Ab Ex was supposed to be a true 'realisation' of painting as it had occurred in the past; stripped of its illusionism in favour of medium purity. One can't eschew the past while retaining the medium of paint. It was a continuation in new terms. Minimalism is a post-formalism but not a rejection of it

The Surrealists and Futurists started as literary movements but adopted paint. Expressionists too were painters, as were the Fauves.

Dada was the only genuine contrarianism of modern art. Subsequent (or even consequent) movements like Neo-Dada (and equivalent international movements), Conceptualists (and institutional critique), operated on a sort of codified Dadaism. They were too thick with theory to be considered basic contrarians. They were serious too, not ironic, and they all made good art.