How does it feel to know the artistic reach of humanity peaked two centuries ago?

Don't despair. Just Imagine the great art that will be produced in a fashy White Ethnostate. Imagine no pomo conceptual bullshit and no preachy PC set pieces. The Great Era of Western Art will return . We shall build gleaming new cathedrals, chateaus and mead halls. May the West shall blossom into a New Athens.

haha, how can autism be used as an insult?

Only an ignorant cunt would use autism as an insult. (And there's nothing I hate more than ignorance)

Autism is a gift in my case, I have an IQ of over 150 which makes me technically a genius thanks to my autism. I've been going through school all my life being bored out of my fucking brains getting at least 95% on all my tests (and all the incorrect answers were silly mistakes) because I'm just too fucking smart for school I can't wait for everyone else to learn something I already knew within the first day or too of being taught it.

Every ear I scored the best of my year on these stupid multiple choice tests we do and the headmaster came to my class to tell me that, which obviously resulted in being called a 'nerd' which is true but I shouldn't be ridiculed for it.

I recently became home educated so I could learn at my own pace and I'm getting my GCSEs done in 1/4 of the time everyone else has to do it in, I'm also doing more than double the average amount of GCSEs that usually would be done.

I used to get paid £30 an hour working online, which is more than the teaching assistants at my old school earned, it was so fun pointing that out to them
So in conclusion, calling someone autistic is not an insult, in my case it makes me highly gifted.

One more thing, I don't know if this has anything to do with my autism but I am a sociopath so I'm not hindered by irrational emotions like guilt, compassion, empathy, etc.

haha, the most satisfying thing is to know that you will all see this as a waste of a natural gift and that I am undeserving hahaha, that brings me great satisfaction.
I'm practically perfect, let the jealousy flow through you.

>*japanese cartoon image posted*
>'Autism is a gift in my case-'
>'I recently became home educated so-'
>'I use to get paid-'

so you're a fuckin neet weaboo is what you're trying to say

What exactly is your point here? If you're saying we ought to frown upon those who impersonate people who perished in the Holocaust, I would be inclined to agree, though I'd also like to point out that there is absolutely no logical connection between that small group of people and the creation of postmodernism (a suspect concept in itself, imo).

If, however, you're implying (as you obviously are) that this screenshot somehow unveils a fraud of "the Jews," and that "the Jews" are responsible for "postmodernism" (already there are two equally spurious concepts in the implicit proposition you're making, disregarding all failures in logic), I think you need to think a little harder about what the actual libel is you're trying to make against "the Jews," because I can see nothing here other than the somewhat disrespectful fraud of one person, who may or may not be Jewish. Try harder next time, my dear stormy.

But to answer OP, as grand as the Romantics certainly are, it seems arbitrary to me to say that they (and Wordsworth in particular) are the absolute height of human potential. Why not say that humanity "peaked" in the time of Shakespeare, Montaigne, and Cervantes? Or during the height of Ming, when each bureaucrat, each overseer of a subdivision's subdivision, was required to be as capable a poet and scholar as as statesman? Yeats would say that the height was reached during the ascendancy of the Byzantine Empire, during which time a commentator claimed that each wet nurse and mosaicist could give a sophisticated and personal explication of theology, and from which time so much of the art does indeed seem to have an exquisite otherworldly quality, though literature was not a major beneficiary of this period of enlightenment that Yeats supposes, and of course Yeats thought that a similar height of artistic expression would inevitably be reached again.

So yeah, why Wordsworth in particular OP?

The Recognitions was published six decades ago

>Jews dindu nuffin
t. Schlomo Goldberg Shekelstein

Who are you quoting?

>he doesn't recognize copypasta

Leave now and never come back. He memed you.

le pretending to be a n00b meme, hella freaking epic

The artistic height of humanity is the ancient Greeks.

You literally cannot refute this.

Kys

...

>May the West shall blossom

Mae West died fucking decades ago bruh. I wish I weren't the one to tell you this.

the fifth century BC and the nineteenth century AD are easily the peaks (that we're aware of)

In a thread with a literal autism copypasta, you've somehow managed to be even more autistic. Congratulations.

The 19th century sucked though

TURDSWORTH TURDSWORTH

>liked Alexander Pope
Byron was a turbopleb

That conclusion doesn't follow from the premise

>he thinks the author of Ode to a Shovel is superior to the author of Juan

You sound really pretentious.

19thc was great for literature but horrible for pretty much all the other arts, save for maybe sculpture

painting turned to shit (until modernism)
music turned to shit (until modernism)
fashion was GODawful
architecture was just as bad, the most horrible plague of weWuZ-itis swept Europe and the Americas

19th century sculpture had nothing until Rodin.

Rodimeme isn't bad but neoclassicist sculpture was great

lol, this

feels great.

You don't have to compete with those geniuses, now do you?

late 19th century painting was legit (think Manet, Cezanne, etc)
Wagner, Chopin, and Liszt are all worth mentioning

But literature suffered until Symbolism/early modernism because of the trend of Victorian sentimentalism. Hardy and Browning are legit though

>Wagner, Chopin, Liszt are all worth mentioning
'are worth mentioning'

Only on Veeky Forums do you get people who are so full of philistine snobbery that they can opine that names such as Wagner, Chopin and Liszt are only 'worth mentioning'

wrong,wrong,wrong

>music turned to shit
You better fucking take that back, shiteater. The 19th century was, if nothing else, the musical century, when the boundaries of the traditional forms were pushed to the utmost limits of expressionism without being broken. If you can listen to the late Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, and not be almost overwhelmed by beauty, you do not qualify as human in my eyes. Also, while I know very little about the visual arts, I also think your claim about painting is probably very wrong as well. After the great Italian and Flemish masters, the Symbolists and Pre-Raphaelites have always been most captivating to me, not to mention the advent of impressionism, which is probably the most important event in the history of Western plastic arts. Then again, I admit that I am a tasteless pleb in regards to the plastic arts, though I am trying to improve. The age of the screen has sadly rather overloaded the faculty for sheer visual appreciation, I find. But even I can tell you're full of shit.

I listen only to post darmstaadt school dodecaphony, procedurally generated algorithm sonic experiments and field recordings.

19th romantic music tends to be nervous and extreme

Symbolist and Pre-Raphaelite painting, especially in English, is gay as fuck and a decadent perversion of Romanticism. Italian and Flemish painting post-1700 is a meme
Impressionism is good though.

Best century for painting was 1450-1550
Best century for music was the 17th century
Best century for poetry was either Homer's time or the late Middle Ages

>Tchaikovsky, Bruckner
>No Wagner, no Schumann, no ... JUST

>nervous and extreme
t. Idiot

>Symbolist [...] is gay as fuck
At least you got that right, but that's a good thing.

>Schumann
>Wagner
>good
Untermensch.

>overwhelmed by beauty
fag

Also he is right about painting. 19th century was anaesthetic garbage for the middle-class with the exception of those painters that led directly to 'modernism' in the formalist sense.

Impressionism is also for fags.

Best century for poetry was 11th century Japan.

Painting is correct.

...

Then you're a fucking idiot who has never felt a real emotion. Your tastes wholly encompass all those things which neoliberalism passes off for the avant-garde, because they are certain not to stir up any actual feeling, or incline one to give up any of the trappings of capitalism for mere beauty's sake.

I realize you're trolling, but I'd just like to point out that things like this are popular in large part because they can in no way influence anybody to question the established, anti-aesthetic order, precisely because there is nothing aesthetic about them. Schoenberg, though I find his music totally lacking in taste however mathematically interesting it may be, at least had a vision, and I find his concept of the "liberation of the dissonant" quite inspiring, even if I do not care for the results. But all that kind of thing you mention, and we may add most avant-garde popular music to that, is totally limp and meaningless.

Well then I have nothing more to say to you. You do not qualify as human.

Well the implication was that the list can go on (pardon the maymay). I'm not going to namedrop every great 19th century composer just for the hell of it. Those are just some of my favorites, even if Schumann and Wagner can perhaps outdo Bruckner, say, in terms of technical innovation and scope of register.

Every word you type speaks against you. Evidently those who cannot understand 19th century art (which is really an impossibly broad category anyways) can muster no better reasons to dislike it than "it's faggy lol." Sad!

>Best century for music was the 17th century
Now how the fuck did you reach that conclusion?

19th century is the best for poetry, desu

That pose is so hilarious, like look at me, look how intense I look, lmao

>le high-energy unemployed and mentally ill philology professor

>>Best century for music was the 17th century
>Now how the fuck did you reach that conclusion?
Nigga

!!! AUTISM !!!

>if you don't like what I like you're inhuman and don't feel emotions
w e w

>was 15 years old at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries

Again, where are you coming up with this stuff? Pretty much the only viable choices for best century of music are 18th, 19th, and 20th. But as I said, I'm not sure if anything really meaningful can be said about an entire century's worth of music. It seems arbitrary.

Indeed, in certain matters this is true. If you like to just go around killing people, I would also consider you to be something less than human. Failing to even begin to appreciate the best music that has ever been is a comparable crime, in my eyes.

>Every word you type speaks against you. Evidently those who cannot understand 19th century art (which is really an impossibly broad category anyways) can muster no better reasons to dislike it than "it's faggy lol." Sad!

My reason for disliking it is because it's anaesthetic garbage for the middle-class. It's art for non-thinkers and dilettantes who wish to be sophisticated by claiming to really 'feel' the sublime in a static image to impress their equally middle-brow friends.

>Indeed, in certain matters this is true. If you like to just go around killing people, I would also consider you to be something less than human. Failing to even begin to appreciate the best music that has ever been is a comparable crime, in my eyes.
holy kek

Well, I can see little purpose in art other than "really feeling the sublime." Art can do little in the way of social reform; training up critical thinking is best done through technically rigorous philosophy; art certainly does nothing to increase utility or physical comfort, unless it is a tastefully decorated divan or something, in which case it will get worn out after providing its utility anyways, and no longer be a work of art. What it does do better than anything else is provide a sense of the beautiful, of the changeless life that exists outside of both life and death and any conventionally conceived afterlife. To me that is more than enough, because everything else merely forms a platform for the exposition of the sublime. Art is the most important thing almost by definition, precisely because it is the most useless. I really don't care if that perspective is "for fags" or not, and indeed I wish that the bourgeois held it, but I think they never have, now or back then.

Look, I'm not saying nothing happened in the 17th century musically, but do you really think that Stozzi can stand up against Mozart, Beethoven, or Stravinsky? It just seems a bizarre proposition to me.

Whoops just gave my pseud away. Strozzi is a painter, not a composer (I had never heard of him). Disregard what I said about the 17th century.

>Well, I can see little purpose in art other than "really feeling the sublime."

Well, you did admit to being a tasteless pleb when it comes to the plastic arts. Your ahistorical analysis of art's purpose speaks to that.

Not that you're responding to the point of my post anyway!

Back to the books.

Can't you read? Schlomo Goldberg Shekelstein

i guess i meant more the peaks of human civilization than the peaks of art necessarily

still, 19thc lit is pretty unfuckwithable as a whole.

It's the shithole of the internet for a reason, the normie dimension shouldn't be like that.

This, we need to start fucking young boys and wear drapery again

post ONE (1) greek fart letter

But anime only peaked about 10 years ago

And it is already stagnating and dying

You mean when 90% of it was ugly adaptations of stupidly over the top teenage drama VNs?