It is clear that all "modern" art has no purely aesthetical standpoint. What do I mean? Futurism had an idea about a new time, about machinery and man and so on. The same happened with Cubism and Dadaism. although the ideas behind were different.
It is clear that "fascist aesthetics" and the art of the third Reich had the same background. They were intertwined and interconnected with the political frameworks of these ideologies. But is it possible to have these aesthetics, to see them as an influence and to like them, while not necessary being someone who is a fascist or national socialist. Can the aesthetic and art of these times be "saved" and even reused as an influence today?
You may call me a total pleb, but the works of Arno Breker to me seem a lot more like art than anything the Dadaists did. It seems that futurism, as an example, is only excommunicated because it gets connected to fascism. It is hard to say that Italy even had something as state art, Mussolini himself said that it is a thing of the individual. (One could exclude Romaboo architecture). So, do you think that these art styles are "redeemable"?
Its not art, and its ugly. Is it as gay as libcuck marxist not-art? No, but it angers me more because those pieces commemorated incredibly disgusting ideas that are better left in museums than for people to start making more.
Landon Russell
Who has the objective ability and authority to judge what art is and what is not? Even philosophically Aesthetics are kinda... well, dead. Aesthetics themselves never answered any of the fundamental questions of art.
So, "its not art, and its ugly" seems like something you might say, but the other guy might not. I'm not saying anyone is particularly right about it though. I'm looking for a pattern that is not, "yea man, all is subjective" >hits blunt
Alexander Allen
Also, thought experiment. If our civilization would collapse tomorrow and some archeologist in 5000 years would unearth a Arno Breker piece, without knowing anything about the political background of the system it was in, would he deem it as art?
Probably.
Would he deem the dadaist "fountain" (1917) as art if he dug it out? Probably not, he would probably figure out that it is used for someone to piss in it rather.
Tyler Wood
>fascist aesthetics A retarded bastard child of neoclassicism and modernism. There was nothing particularly original or impressive about fascist "art".
William Scott
if you have no education in art or aesthetics you might feel that way, but art is as clear-cut and theology. It's not art, and its literally more abominable than dadaism because the peice is saying they'll bash yourh ead in with a club.
Adrian Lewis
Unironically, honest question. It's hard to be educated in everything. I have read my share of Aesthetics. I think I understand the background of most art movements, but I'd like to understand more. Could you point me to something I could read to get a broader vision of things? Or give us a little summary of things?
Owen Morales
r u gay for those nazi statue pecs OP?
Nicholas Russell
Continue speaking the truth OP. These Marxist brainlets can only resort to petty insults when confronted with truth.
Mason Price
>fascist aesthetics
It's like the exact opposite of art. They put these horrible oppressive square buildings all over Italy. Art supposedly nourishes the human soul, fascism and its artistic aesthetics tend to do quite the opposite.
Isaiah Rodriguez
how many pieces have you bought user?
Joshua Roberts
...
Tyler Lewis
(1/2)
(A.I.), >It is clear that "fascist aesthetics" and the art of the third Reich ... were intertwined and interconnected with the political frameworks of these ideologies. (A.II.), >But is it possible to have these aesthetics, to see them as an influence and to like them, while not necessary being someone who is a fascist or national socialist. Can the aesthetic and art of these times be "saved" and even reused as an influence today? (A.III.), >Also, thought experiment. If our civilization would collapse tomorrow and some archeologist in 5000 years would unearth a Arno Breker piece, without knowing anything about the political background of the system it was in, would he deem it as art? (A.III.I.) >Would he deem the dadaist "fountain" (1917) as art if he dug it out? Probably not, he would probably figure out that it is used for someone to piss in it rather.
To start, I would like to say I do think that an Arno Breker piece is indeed art, however the full success of the work I would contend would have to do with your agreement with the attitudes of the artwork itself. A Berker work I think is an excellent example, because works of his that I have seen are formally beautiful, or at least easy on the eyes. This is a thing with which most people would agree, I would think. In relation to (A.II.), need we be fascist or something of the like to enjoy such pieces? I do not think so, however, I would argue we are incapable of fully appreciating the work.
Kayden Perry
(2/2) Take for example the case you posited in (A.III.)/(A.III.I.), would the people favor the Berker work in the capacity of being aesthetic? By my intuition, I would say they would - but in both cases there seems to be major holes in the archaeologist's knowledge of both pieces. There is no way we can say they could fully grasp the work as they would be fully ignorant of its history. I am not here making the claim that history necessarily makes or breaks a piece (though it could in certain cases perhaps, such as being plagiarized), but the history of a work such as context of the piece does seem to matter if we wish to say we actually fully understand the work, taking from claim (A.I.).
So, establishing that it seems to be the case that the history of a work is important insofar as being able to grasp the work, one could use the aesthetic of these works, but only partially so. Then you would have to take up the question of whether an Arno Berker work would remain aesthetic through a glass, darkly.
Brayden Rodriguez
a big hare...
Matthew Perez
Brutalism is the domain of commies
Jeremiah Fisher
Thank you for the serious post. Thinking about it, it is hard to escape historicisim, an argument as my "archaeology argument" is only partially possible and you are correct that the archeologist would have no full knowledge of the art piece.
I fall into historicism myself if I try to answer the question: "What does 'Bereitschaft' (1939) represent for you?
For me the head is especially mesmerising. It is the expression of manliness, strength, determination. It could be the face of a Spartan at Thermopylae, it could be the face of Xenophon on the Anabasis. Do you see what I'm doing? I'm engaging in history to describe an art piece.
For a national socialist in 1945. it probably would be the face of unyielding manliness in the defense of the Vaterland.
Therefore both of our interpretations are historicisms. On the other hand, my archaeology was trying to argue from the aspect of "pure aesthetics" but it still hard to determine if they exactly exist at all. If they do an art piece would have to be deemed beautiful at any time and in any historical circumstance. This can not even be said of Greek sculpture or drama anymore, since there are people that see it as boring today.
Yes.
Jonathan Wright
The reason most modern art is crap is because anyone with a modicum of talent isn't going to fuck around painting pictures these days.
Jose Bennett
>art needs to be "original" and "impressive" It's like you've become so opposed to /pol/ you've gone full circle. /pol/ thinks abstract art isn't art because it isn't realistic and you think neoclassic and fascist art isn't art because it's not interesting or unique.Both need to go take a art history 101 course.
The topic is dying. I want to share something. A sad interview with Arno Breker, if you speak German read it. I'm not political but this interviewer is disgusting.
Adrian Reed
Art was traditionally created for three reasons: 1. Religious 2. National pride 3. Show of skill, by recreating something in as realistic and convincing a manner as possible
No. 1 no longer applies, as religion is effectively dead in the West. No. 2 doesn't apply either, as patriotism is the mark of a bigot and taking pride in a battle your nation won, or conquest they achieved, shows you are a brainlet. 3. Has become pretty irrelevant thanks to photography, which means those who would previously have commissioned trompe-l'œil pieces don't have the same desire
Now it's just people with no skills and few redeemable qualities, filling their time by shitting in tin cans and calling it a 'deep, meaningful indictment of both the West's gluttony and its wretched, industrialised culture - maaaaan'
Landon Brown
Art is something that two or more people agree is art.
Christopher Martin
A table is something two or more people agree is a table.
Matthew Miller
There is no objective aesthetic. If you want photo realism, go look at a fucking photo.
Ian King
4. Decoration 5. Prestige of man or his family 6. The fun of creating it 7. Ideology 8. Illustration
Brandon Gray
>I don't get the message, therefore it has no message
Jose King
and yet, pic related is very much art.
Dylan Reyes
The sad thing is, I get the message. It is impossible to not get the message with all explanations that are available. Be it a book on the history of art or an youtube documentary of X.
I even appreciate the message, but I don't find the art piece beautiful BECAUSE of the message. I may look at it disconnecting it from the message, what do I have left? I can look at an Arno Breker piece and know its message. I can disconnect it from the message and what do I see, an aesthetically beautiful piece. If my train of thought is direct then the Arno Breker piece has a message (which art has no message, its nothing unique?) and it is aesthetically pleasing. If I take away the historical context and message of the Dadaist "Fountain", I get a pissoir.
Isaac Davis
Well, fascist art is pretty homo-erotic, so if you find a muscular man striking a masculine pose appealing... maybe you are a bit gay, OP?
Logan Scott
So what if I am? Is that a way to discredit the art? If it appeals to the homosexuality in man isn't it art? How many of the liberal, new age, artists are trying to portray that? By your definition Greek art could be gay too. It captures the beauty of the human body. So when "national socialists" do it its gay and wrong, when someone is doing just that today he is groundbreaking and destroying stereotypes.
I'd rather like a serious response than: >uh..oh... OP... y-you a-re gay!
It's sad that this argument even works, you couldn't have told me that I'm gay because I like the "fountain" since it isn't even capturing anything aesthetically beautiful, but the Breker piece is.
Colton Nguyen
As you may have figured out by now, Veeky Forums is not a place for in-depth discussions of art.
>But is it possible to have these aesthetics, to see them as an influence and to like them, while not necessary being someone who is a fascist or national socialist. To like them? That is certainly possible. Many atheists can appreciate religious paintings and sacral music, so a non-fascist can appreciate fascist art.
>Can the aesthetic and art of these times be "saved" and even reused as an influence today? That is much less likely. Fascist art today would be anachronistic (it was anachronistic even back when it was made) because of its "non-aestethical" elements that determine its aestethical elements. You try to separate them in the beginning of your post, but those two aspects are far too closely connected. You can't have italian futurism, art that exalts technology and speed, if you don't exalt technology and speed. You can't have surrealism without Freud. Aesthetics are a consequence of an idea. Same thing happens to fascist art. Fascist exalt strength and such stuff, so their art exalts strength. Trying to imitate it today would be nonsensical, strength is literally useless today and almost nobody would have it if we didn't artificially gain it by working out. There are countless contemporary problems and themes that are/seem more important to tackle in a piece of art. This is not an age of strength or of great men that could be exalted. Allow me to be pretentious for a moment and to quote Shakespeare (Julius Caesar) to better illustrate my point:
Adrian Scott
CASSIUS I cannot tell what you and other men Think of this life, but, for my single self, I had as lief not be as live to be In awe of such a thing as I myself. I was born free as Caesar, so were you; We both have fed as well, and we can both Endure the winter's cold as well as he. For once, upon a raw and gusty day, The troubled Tiber chafing with her shores, Caesar said to me, "Darest thou, Cassius, now Leap in with me into this angry flood And swim to yonder point?" Upon the word, Accoutred as I was, I plunged in And bade him follow. So indeed he did. The torrent roar'd, and we did buffet it With lusty sinews, throwing it aside And stemming it with hearts of controversy. But ere we could arrive the point proposed, Caesar cried, "Help me, Cassius, or I sink! I, as Aeneas, our great ancestor, Did from the flames of Troy upon his shoulder The old Anchises bear, so from the waves of Tiber Did I the tired Caesar. And this man Is now become a god, and Cassius is A wretched creature and must bend his body If Caesar carelessly but nod on him. He had a fever when he was in Spain, And when the fit was on him I did mark How he did shake. 'Tis true, this god did shake; His coward lips did from their color fly, And that same eye whose bend doth awe the world Did lose his luster. I did hear him groan. Ay, and that tongue of his that bade the Romans Mark him and write his speeches in their books, Alas, it cried, "Give me some drink, Titinius," As a sick girl. Ye gods! It doth amaze me A man of such a feeble temper should So get the start of the majestic world And bear the palm alone.
This is completely normal thinking today. We have a great lack of ideals. (I'm not saying this is good or bad.)
Fascist art also satisfies the demands of those who think that realistic art = good art. That is a problem which is on a different plane from what I just described.
Jose Scott
>You may call me a total pleb, but the works of Arno Breker to me seem a lot more like art than anything the Dadaists did. And?
>It seems that futurism, as an example, is only excommunicated because it gets connected to fascism. Excommunicated? How did you get this idea? Futurism is treated like any other modernist -ism, if not with more attention, due to its radical "progressivism" and far-reaching influence.
