How do we fix art, Veeky Forums? And I mean all forms of art. Painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature

degenerate art is a product of capitalism that is degenerating

Would you mind explaining?

Seen the Rape of Prosperina live one 3 occassions, and countless times on a computer, and I still get amazed at the skill of Bernini

>ITT: MUH EVIL CAPITALISM

as we move from the capitalism of production to the capitalism of lavishing ourselves with our own wealth, discipline dissolves. Discipline in art is just one of the victims

This. socialism don't work cause you eventually run out of other people's money. Basic economics, really.

We don't.

DaDaism/ I';ll get the hammers

I said you can still find it in eastern societies m8. If you compare the kind of active audience/participants sculpting versus the other forms I still imagine it's the smallest.

(1/2)

Architecture student here.

This threads makes me think of how much architecture has devalued over the last 150 years. Back then, other arts like painting and sculpture were auxiliar to architecture. Buildings had tons of paintings in the interior and sculptures in the exterior. They took some time to do, maybe even years, but hey, that's the price you have to pay for quality. Everything was aesthetically pleasing, everything had class and character. We were surrounded by art.

But then abstract and funcionalist movements struck. Everything was meant to be simple and functional. Art could be anything. You don't need to have top skills nowadays to be considered an artist. Nobody cares about art anymore. That negligence is what keeps art in its current state, nobody cares abour art, so there is no need for artists to improve. You can be a monkey with no skills and paint something like Pollock, Mondrian or Rothko and call yourself an artist. Architecture was affected by this and it deviated from the logical straight line of development and evolution it had been following. You could see how architecture was slowly changing and evolving from the ancient Greeks, to Rome, to Byzantium, to Venice, the Gothic style, Renaissance, Baroque, Neoclassicism, and then started deviating, first slowly but nicely, with Art Nouveau-Jugendstil and Art Deco. And then took another completely different direction with no correlation to the other ones with functionalism and minimalism.

I think that us, the present and future generations have the task of taking architecture back to were it belongs. They noticed this in the XV and XVI centuries, and the Renaissance was born. They noticed it again in the XIX century and Neoclassicism was born. We should re direction architecture in the way it should: to a constant and regular development and evolution. Combining classic aesthetics with modern knowledge. We can use the last century as an experimental time. How do we do this? We now know much more different materials that we can use, such as mass produced crystal, aluminium or cobblestone alternatives. We can use steel to make better buildings. We know the structure theories iniciated by Le Corbusier. We now can make curtain walls. We can make taller buildings. We can make different intricated structures, proven by architects such as Gehry (although I hate him), Santiago Calatrava or Frank Lloyd Wright. Combining modern shapes (not that I'm implying that we should make a Gehry's Guggenheim made with marble and using ornaments like gargoyles and with triglyphs for example :lol:), structures and materials but adorning them and making them as aesthetically pleasing as classic architecture used to be. We need to re use and redevelop old techniques and resources such as column capitals and orders, porticos and peristyles, different types of arches, vaults, etc.

Art's a product of alienation. Destroy art/life distinction. Everything should be art

saying "socialism don't work" doesn't disprove the fact that capitalism is objectively terrible.

Gonna stop you right there, art has no place in capitalism and I suggest you stop pretending otherwise

(2/2)

And this comes with other important point: Identity. Back then, every town, every nation had its own identity. You can easily see the differences between spanish and italian baroque for example. Homegrown artists generally used to make their work in their own lands. Italian artists for Italy, french artists for France, spanish artists for Spain, turk artists for the Ottoman Empire, chinese artists for the Chinese Empire, and so on. Now, everyone can make any kind of building in any place in the world. You can place a chinese building in the USA or England for example, and it would most likely not look out of place. We need to give each country its identity back. I'm not saying that architects should not make buildings outside of their countries; I'm saying architects should adapt to other countries traditions and culture before making a new design there. The only good example of what I'm saying, I think, is brazilian modern architecture. It started with Oscar Niemeyer and Lúcio Costa, and you can still see it in Paulo Mendes da Rocha. They have an identity. You can recognize brazilian architecture easily, anywhere. Many other big countries fail to have a way of making architecture of its own. I wouldn't like to see some of the buildings in Brasilia, Rio or any other Brazilian city on any place other than Brazil. It just wouldn't feel right. That's why I love the fact that almost all Niemeyer's buildings were built in Brazil. I think he basically started Brazilian architecture and certainly influenced every contemporary brazilian architect. Some aspects and characteristics I've seen are quite usual in Brazilian architecture: Simple shapes, interaction between straight lines and curves, minimalism, bare concrete facade, plain white + crystal facade, contrast between the juxtaposition of bare concrete or plain white with stong basic colours like red or blue, for example, specially in the interiors.

If we manage to merge what I said before, we can make architecture beautiful again. This also applies for other forms of art: painting, sculpture, music, literature...

literally please go dig a hole and bury yourself in it

The externalization of a person's ideas, beliefs, emotions, and interpretation of reality and information. It's nature filtered through the human consciousness.

Socialism only has the equal distribution of misery

>implying Wittgenstein didn't solve architecture too
don't bother with part II, you haven't even read Kant

sharing is caring right

Okay but the viability of socialism has no bearing on the quality of capitalism. They can both be terrible.

great meme, well played

Haus Wittgenstein is good, functional and modern (for its time). But it has no identity or character. Combine its functionalism with art, and we have good architecture.

Also:
>Haus Wittgenstein
>Designed with Paul Engelmann in 1925.
>Engelmann basing on what Adolf Loos proposed in 1901.
>Still calling it "contemporary" and using those ideas even though they are more than 100 years old.

Actually I think Witty did draw a lot on Kant's principles for his design with Engelmann, which is probably why even he found it soulless. You should look at his windows and doors in action for some serious elegance if you haven't seen it yet.

>How do we fix art, Veeky Forums?

Nu Know Brow, High Art in a Virtuoso fashion ???

An avant garde that is so very stylish

retard

fascinating

>socialism
>money

its often the people who think they're fixing it that fuck it up the worst

Capitalism is the nemesis of high culture. Capitalist """"""art"""""" is the most plebeian shit ever seen on the face of this planet.

Hello Adolf.

Pls no invade Russia this time.

>Italian artists for Italy, french artists for France, spanish artists for Spain, turk artists for the Ottoman Empire,

ahahahahaha the absolute madman

So my desire right now to go make a pizza is art?

N-no, but the pizza itself could be art, if done in a way that satisfies those conditions. By externalization I meant the product, like the painting or song itself.

that's not art, that's just communication.

Who pays for "high culture"

"High culture" only exists because of capitalism and is a enjoyed by the privileged class, fucktard.

what a transparently stupid goal.

>"High culture" only exists because of capitalism
No it doesn't, high culture exists because of feudalism and the lingering cultural vestiges of the aristocracy.

Capitalism as a mode of production places massive profit incentives on plebeian art because that's the best way to make fat profits and this profit incentivised economy strangles any kind of high culture in the crib with it only surviving as an odd curiosity for whoever is interested.

The only way to return to high culture is to make sure that there are no more plebs to be marketed to or anyone to market to them, i.e classes society i.e communism.

end yourself

damn nice feet. most sculptures ive seen have shittily sculpted feet.

you're right but bitching about how capitalism is shit doesn't change the fact that it's better than any alternative.

Gas the kikes desu

Are you going to deny that music, literature and plastic arts + architecture have not been devalued over the last 100 years and are still in constant decline? What a fucking retard.

end yourself

Actually it's socialism that debases art and undermines objective standards. The rise of decadent art coincided exactly with the rise of ideological Marxism and pragmatic socialism

>communism
>art

>anything that is not capitalist is communism
Holy shit

Hey retard, do you know why the last decent thing in architecture were neoclassicism and art nouveau? Because nations still existed. Good fucking luck getting anything but a glib facsimile post-globalization.

But the fact that it's shit is clearly a problem that needs to be solved. Maybe the solution is right in front of us, maybe it hasn't been invented yet, but in any case capitalism is problematic to the topic of the thread.

>he posts meme reactions pics of evola

tell me more about your disdain for "modern man"

On the contrary the USSR was the most patrician country on the planet and made high culture accessible for everyone rather than making culture that would be instantly accessible and appealing to everyone.

Rather than making art for plebs, they exposed plebs to the good shit.

HARE KRISHNA HARE KRISHNA
KRISHNA KRISHNA HARE HARE

>capitalism
>art

Reminder that every true cultural renaissance throughout history took place in a capitalist paradise

Right, so where's Somalia's renaissance?

>Somalia
>Paradise of any kind

Not sure if trolling or just fresh off the boat from lefty/pol/

>opens pic
>sees ancap meme

I guess it's the later then

*latter

>Paradise of any kind
Yes, a capitalist paradise.

If it doesn't look like a paradise then the problem is clear.

Huh? America didn't become a capitalist country until the 20th century, and capitalism didn't become a major global phenomenon until the latter half of the 19th century.

You don't get it.
You get it.

You can't possibly be this retarded. By "capitalist paradise" I mean places where there's a shitload of rich people. There have been no socialist renaissances.

>inb4 socialism has never been tried

>Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit

Remember when you could buy slaves to own to work your plantation that you own to sell the crops that you own for capital gain? The fuck are you on about?

Back to r/fullcommunism please

>Thinks capitalism is objectively terrible

People are this deluded?

>Implying that under communism there would be anything but plebs.

Yeah classless since we are all sitting in our own shit.

>the very foundation of the system is the myth of a "mutually beneficial transaction" which is basically one guy ripping off the other and brainwashing him into thinking he got a deal
>not a terrible system

>You can't possibly be this retarded. By "capitalist paradise" I mean places where there's a shitload of rich people
So was the USSR a capitalist paradise?
Was the Roman Empire?

>I need hierarchy to prevent me from sitting in my own shit
Says a lot about you tbqh.

>Thinks there is such thing as inherent objective value
>I have a burger but want a hot dog, guy who wants a hotdog has a burger. Trading with him will not make me better off.

Back to r/socialism (and inb4 ancap strawmanning )

Not sure what your trying to imply. The USSR never had a renaissance and Rome wasn't socialist.

I'll try to get up and everyone else will hold me down so that we all have equal outcomes.

>Hierarchy
>Inherently bad

*you're

Okay, so if it has loads of rich people and a cultural renaissance that means it's a capitalist paradise? In other words if it's successful it must be capitalist.

>Rome wasn't socialist.
Socialism isn't the only non-capitalist system, user.

Is that why you're not a billionaire yet, user?
Is everyone else holding you down?

>Implying I'm not a millionaire

One can be above the average and not be a super rich ty. These things take time and effort, not like a commiecuck such as you would understand.

>I'm bourgeoisie
Why did you just say so?

"I'm rich and I don't want commies to collectivize my "property"" is an infinitely more valid argument than "Without wage labour how can I bootstrap my way to success?".

>In other words if it's successful it must be capitalist.

Socialists don't consider many rich people to be a sign of success because they view private property, a requirement of being rich, as an abomination. If success in your eyes = rich people then yes, if it's successful it must be capitalist, because only capitalism allows rich people to exist.

>Socialism isn't the only non-capitalist system, user.

It wasn't non-capitalist either.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy

>Although aristocratic values permeated traditional elite society, a strong tendency toward plutocracy is indicated by the wealth requirements for census rank. Prestige could be obtained through investing one's wealth in ways that advertised it appropriately: grand country estates or townhouses, durable luxury items such as jewels and silverware, public entertainments, funerary monuments for family members or coworkers, and religious dedications such as altars. Guilds (collegia) and corporations (corpora) provided support for individuals to succeed through networking, sharing sound business practices, and a willingness to work.

Basic income

*didn't

>Socialists don't consider many rich people to be a sign of success because they view private property, a requirement of being rich,
Rich people existing is a bad thing, however their existence is a definite sign that this is a successful economy as it has generated the massive amount of wealth that the bourgeoisie exploit. The existence of rich people is a sign of wealth which is a sign of economic success.

>It wasn't non-capitalist either.
Yes it was, capitalism wouldn't exist for over a thousand more years after the Western Roman empire fell.

Did it have capitalist elements? Yes, but so did the USSR. And that definitely wasn't capitalist unless you want to go the full leftcom.

>however their existence is a definite sign that this is a successful economy as it has generated the massive amount of wealth that the bourgeoisie exploit

and what I am trying to explain to you is that even if you can find isolated instances of socialist/anti-capitalist/"whatever the hell you want to call it" societies with thriving economies where everyone had an equal share of prosperity and wealth, none of those societies have birthed a renaissance because they lack the rich.

>Yes it was
No, it was clearly capitalist, not "it had some capitalist elements", the means of production was controlled and operated by those who privately owned those means of productions for capital gain, who then proceeded to spend that capital gain lavishly because they were RICH.

>Yes, but so did the USSR

again with this stale "socialism has never been tried" meme.

> the means of production was controlled and operated by those who privately owned those means of productions for capital gain, who then proceeded to spend that capital gain lavishly because they were RICH.
Once again I must say that's exactly what happened in the USSR. Pic related, it's Stalin's holiday home.

Was the USSR capitalist too?

>none of those societies have birthed a renaissance because they lack the rich.
Because there is no such society. The rare instances of non-ML communist societies with a decent population were always swiftly crushed (usually by ML's) before you could really gauge whether or not they are conducive to an artistic renaissance.

>Was the USSR capitalist too?

You socialists will have to decide for yourselves if Komradland was command capitalism or irreparably broken socialism, since nobody except you seems to know what socialism means. Fact is, it was built with the blatant and sole intention of socialism. It was not friendly to the rich by any means, it was not a place that supported them, except for those who would inevitably gain wealth through government corruption like uncle Joe.

Do you consider Lenin a true socialist? There was no renaissance under him either.

>Because there is no such society.

I guess it's pointless to talk about then. My point stands: every true cultural renaissance throughout history took place in a capitalist paradise.

"So the next time you ask yourself where hip-hop is going, ask yourself: where am I going? How am I doing?"

>Painting
not relevant anymore
>sculpture
not that relevant anymore either
>architecture
yeah, this one really needs fixing
>music
this one is ok
>literature
this one is ok too

>not relevant anymore

THIS is the real reason why art is dead, faggots like this user have stopped caring about it because they think gaming systems and Iphones are superior replacements.

>You socialists will have to decide for yourselves if Komradland was command capitalism or irreparably broken socialism, since nobody except you seems to know what socialism means.
I never said it wasn't socialist. I said it very clearly had the kind of capitalist elements you're identifying in the Roman Empire. My implication is that if you must have such a black and white view of economic systems then following your logic the USSR is without a shadow of a doubt capitalist.

But of course that's retarded, just as saying the Roman Empire was capitalist is equally retarded.

>It was not friendly to the rich by any means, it was not a place that supported them, except for those who would inevitably gain wealth through government corruption like uncle Joe.
In other words "It wasn't friendly to the rich except the rich who were in charge". You could apply this to every society to ever exist.

>every true cultural renaissance throughout history took place in a capitalist paradise.
But again, it didn't. The only reason you think it did is because you have an extremely ridiculous concept of what is and isn't capitalist that essentially amounts to "If it's successful then it's capitalist".

The actual renaissance predates capitalism even in the most crude forms, the Carolingian renaissance definitely predates capitalism. So what renaissances are yo actually talking about?

Or is that what the qualifier of "true" was for?

Fear Not Of Man

Sculpture is probably the most relevant medium today. Goto a gallery sometime.

Art is "dead" because the gates were opened to the insecure, uneducated middle class who declared it meaningless and hollow for fact of being beyond their limited comprehension. Rather than thriving out of reach from the plebeian, it's forced to live inbetween their (admittely feeble) awareness.

>they think gaming systems and Iphones are superior replacements

they're atleast better than the trainwreck that is modern "art"

>it very clearly had the kind of capitalist elements you're identifying in the Roman Empire.

Is the picture you posted supposed to be evident of that? Stalin, one of the most powerful dictators in history, along with some of of his mob buddies living in slightly more ornate commie blocks out of the public eye does not even compare to the blatant, widespread plutocracy and worship of materialism that was evident in the roman empire. I'm not being "black and white", they were clearly polar opposites from an intrinsically cultural standpoint.

>But of course that's retarded, just as saying the Roman Empire was capitalist is equally retarded.

People generally say that the USSR was socialist because it had the ultimate intention of socialism, whether it ended up being capitalist is debatable because of how much of a failure it was, but whether it was or wasn't isn't the point which you are failing to understand. This isn't about semantics. The USSR was never anywhere near the level of an ideal capitalist society while ancient Rome, Italy, and Greece all were. They were breeding grounds and magnets for ultra wealthy to play spend and invest lavishly. All societies that failed to attract the rich, like poor countries, or countries that rejected them, like the USSR, have failed to see a renaissance.