What isn't art?
- Started
- Last post
- 147 Responses
- ORAZAL0
Idols/Ordures:
Inter-repulsion in Documents’ big toesOlivier Chow
In this paper we shall explore desire from the perspective of transgression and to be precise, desire generated by the transgressive space born from the oscillation between attraction and repulsion, or what the French surrealist Georges Bataille named ‘inter-repulsion'. We shall argue that the ultimate object of inter-repulsion is death itself and as such, inter-repulsion brings forth not only the subject and its discontents but also the social with its taboos and prohibitions. Inter-repulsion will be discussed in relation to the visual culture of Documents , a dissident and short-lived surrealist journal (1929-1930) that has recently come back to life at the Hayward in the exhibition “Undercover Surrealism.” [1] One of the pièces maîtresses in the main hall of the exhibition is a photograph by Jean-Jacques Boiffard, the most prominent photographer of the journal: a photograph of a magnified big toe around which our discussion will centre.
- ORAZAL0
The Aesthetic of Ugliness — A Kantian Perspective
Mojca KuplenIn the history of aesthetic thought,beauty has been construedas aesthetic value par excelence.According to aesthetic theories,beautiful isthat which gives rise to the feeling of pleasure within us.Hence,aesthetic value of both nature and art works is measured in terms of the feeling of pleasure they occasion in us.Ugliness,correlated to the feeling of displea-sure,on the other hand,has been traditionally theorized as an aestheticcategory that stands in opposition to beauty,and therefore associated withaesthetic disvalue and worthlessness.In recent years,and particularly withthe development of modern art,this traditional aesthetic picture has been widely criticized.It has been pointed out,based on the proliferation of art works that evoke intense feelings of displeasure,that ugliness can be greatly appreciated.Ageneral objective of this paper is to propose an account of ugliness that entails,as its necessary part,the explanation of its possibleappeal.In particular,Ipropose a solution to the problem,known in philo-sophical aesthetics as ‘the paradox of ugliness’,namely how we can valuesomething that we prima faciedo not like and find positively displeasing.Idevelop my explanation of ugliness in light of Kant’s theory of taste.
- scarabin0
- shit outta luck?chukkaphob
- ruffagegilgamush
- checkmatefadein11
- The Bowel Movement™?_niko
- be careful as not to shit yourself right into a cornerPonyBoy
- My dog was on a rampage...Turboslacker
- colin_s1
OK people
Art as we define it now is not how art was defined when what we would consider the classics were modern. However, Art has evolved to being the abstract creative outlet that somehow is representative of our existence.
Since the industrial age where color and suddenly craft were within reach to replicate easier, art got a little more abstract as creatives didn't like being cornered by technology. Limits were pushed and people did not respond well.
We live in an information age now, to which human experience itself is no longer a representative form of art (the way Abramovic may have championed over her career) because everyday people can basically do any and all forms of "art" via some combination of technological convenience.
Artists respond to this by pushing our types of interactions, our sensory responses, to states of experience because it's literally all we have left as humans before AI comes around.
To which art will likely return to the inks of berries on canvas, because we'll all be dead by the robots.
- What isn't art is tough to define now because our age is intellectual and humans don't like having things not spelled out for them visuallycolin_s
- Non retinal art is not art.isleptwithsirenstonight
- no waycolin_s
- imbecile3
OK people
Gender as we define it now is not how gender was defined when what we would consider the classics were modern. However, gender has evolved to being the abstract creative outlet that somehow is representative of our existence.
Since the industrial age where color and suddenly craft were within reach to replicate easier, gender got a little more abstract as creatives didn't like being cornered by technology. Limits were pushed and people did not respond well.
We live in an information age now, to which human experience itself is no longer a representative form of gender (the way Abramovic may have championed over her career) because everyday people can basically do any and all forms of "gender" via some combination of technological convenience.
Genderists respond to this by pushing our types of interactions, our sensory responses, to states of experience because it's literally all we have left as humans before AI comes around.
To which gender will likely return to the inks of berries on canvas, because we'll all be dead by the SJWs.
- What isn't gender is tough to define now because our age is intellectual and humans don't like having things not spelled out for them visuallyimbecile
- https://36.media.tum…isleptwithsirenstonight
- pango0
I have no regret starting this thread. lol
- utopian1
- https://45.media.tum…utopian
- pshh she's fine, more embarrassed than hurtterry_cloth
- The Stendhal syndromeApeRobot
- so fucked upmonospaced
- ApeRobot1
- http://www.ebay.com/…
its up to 2 million. is this real?OP31 - So true!utopian
- http://www.ebay.com/…
- omg3
- bainbridge0
- ?VectorMasked
- Gabriel Kuribainbridge
- Well that's just fucking idiotic.
http://payload40.car…VectorMasked