Does the pic related of literature exist?
Gravity's Rainbow XD
>>23617352yeah, whatever this monkey wrote
>>23617352Burroughs
>>23617371>>23617357>Complete sentences>Abstract expressionism>>23617359>Random nonsense>Literature
>>23617352My diary desu. I talk about a lot of dark and watery stuff in a very fragmented and recursive style.
>>23617352Cantos by Ezra Pound?
>>23617352Contemporary poetry
Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce, and My Life by Lyn Hejinian
>>23617352Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe ShelleyThe Yellowhammer's Nest by John ClareThe Second Coming by William Butler YeatsAlmost any poem by Mark StrandPain by Vernon Scannell>anti-pic relatedIntroduction to Endymion by John KeatsIntroduction to Songs of Innocence, Songs of Experience by William BlakeMeet Me in the Green Glen by John Clare
Nick Land. Impenetrable gobbledegook.
>>23617352Have you tried ekzfohodsv hisdeuewfs by opqwrjprjpw21
>>23617549>'Retard spotted
>>23617352Artaud Selected Writings
>meaningless scribble that superficially pretends to have meaning>still cool to look atCodex Seraphinianus
>>23617408>I talk about a lot of dark and watery stuff in a very fragmented and recursive style.There's very little to none of that in that painting, you philistine
>>23617352Naked lunch
>>23618836>Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley>I met a traveller from an antique land,>Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone>Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,>Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,>And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,>Tell that its sculptor well those passions read>Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,>The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;>And on the pedestal, these words appear:>My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;>Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!>Nothing beside remains. Round the decay>Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare>The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
>>23617352JoyceDFW
>>23617549>My Life by Lyn HejinianThis is actually pretty good thx for the rec. more surreal than expressionism imo
>>23617352Literally 80% of what’s regarded as “good” on this board
>>23619811False and only a maleducated midwit trapped in your mutual egoic mindcave could emotionally presume your characterization rings true
>>23617399random splatter= art, random nonsense=literature as a is to b, c is to d, retard
>>23620228>Random splatters See>>23619871
>>23617371Yeah the Nova trilogy kinda fits, didn't like it at all though
>>23618921>paintingI also made a painting today with the diarrhoea shit I splattered from my ass all over the toilet bowl. It was a modern masterpiece ripped from the profoundest depths of the unconscious (my ass).
>>23620620>Doesn't "get" art
>>23617357Came here to post this ngl
>>23620749It's not even close you stupid pseuds
>>23617352Yes.
>>23618836Ozymandias is my favorite poem, would you care to share your connections anon?
>>23620744Love art. I'm an artist. Hate retarded subhuman hacks who make a mockery of my craft.
>>23621160Let me guess, Pollock doesn't adhere to your precious artistic formalisms, and you see him as a sign of the barbaric degeneration and utter deterioration of the human spirit and condition. Well, you're wrong. You're just fleeing from visceral, vivacious, immediate, emotion-- emotion that isn't neatly and conveniently contained by your nauseous modern predispositionMy point stands: there is no literary equivalent to true expressionism, and your disdain for it screams of an artistic immaturity that is profoundly disrespectful to art and the noble pursuit of artistic excellence. It betrays a juvenile and shallow perspective on the meaning of God and the purpose of genius.
>>23620753You just don't get it
>>23621228You fear feelings you can't explain in complete sentences. I don't know why
>>23621217No, it's just artless trash with no discernible craftsmanship about it to admire. My grandma's knitted winter hat destroys this retard's splotches as a work of art.
It's unfortunate that the visual medium is so very susceptible to this kind of retarded nonsense. You can't just make a really big one of these >>23621130and call it literature and expect to get published and make money. Can't make a discordant tapestry of ear-piercing noise and the sound of your own farts spluttering out your asshole and expect to get on the charts. But in art, if you just turn the "pretence" knob up to max, apparently you can turn the "talent and skill" one all the way down to zero. People will clap.
>>23617352Everyone who trashes Pollock couldn’t get anything even remotely like that. Anyway, Pollock is really a disciple of Jung or Freud in a way
>...mankind its first button. It was hard to know this as politics, because it plays like the work of one person, but nothing is isolated in history-certain humans are situations. Are your fingers in the margin. Their random procedures make monuments to fate. There is something still surprising when the green emerges. The blue fox has ducked its head. The front rhyme of harmless with harmony. Where is my honey running. You cannot linger "on the lamb." You cannot determine the nature of progress until you assemble all of the relatives.
>>23621217Sucks how much I agree with you yet hate you at the same time.
>>23617352Yeah.
>>23621374>The aggressive tone and personal attacks may lead to discomfort or rejection, causing supporters to distance themselves from the rhetoric despite agreeing with the underlying argument.Noted
>>23621138I suppose I can try.For me, when I see this particular Pollock, there is a vivacious, menacing energy to it. His strokes are wild at the outsides, but they slosh in heaps towards the center. They loop backwards and ribbon; the majority failing to achieve any escape velocity. Each group of paint nearly seems pulled towards a center point, but there isn't a center. At least, there isn't a center to the center we are viewing. There are competing points of gravity here. The energy of the painting is like a chaotic series of undulations which vie for power in three dimensions, yet, there is almost the semblance of a shape, an object, an entity. A psychotic maelstrom with a hidden order. A hideous ugliness made horrifying by the presence of beauty. A great entropy above the human, and as such, captivating and devoid of mercy. I look at this painting and I see the coming of the great god, Entropy, second face of Time, threatening to enter this dimension and lay waste to everything in his way. I see the reminder of its omnipresence in and beyond this realm. I see its pitiless gaze that knows no human malice and is malice itself. In the shifting nebulae of those streaks, a bright red dot hovers in the center—an eye, a heart, something integral. In the whirling presence of this creature, this force, a glimpse of something is seen—the pure destruction which lies at the heart of things. It's name is Entropy, and its other names are Time, Psychosis, Forgetting, Delusion, Panic, Rage, Sin—the name by which it should be called is as inaccessible as its nature.In each of those poems you'll find a face of this creature, this god, this force. You'll find its seal. And in the poems which are its opposite, you'll find both what it comes to destroy and what is seen in its wake. I hope that makes some sense, and I should say, I mean "god" in the loosest, most animistic sense. I am a Christian, and only believe in one true God. Even this creature serves Him.
>>23621217The issue at hand is past a certain point if you count the impenetrable then you must either exclude all humanity but the delusional from art as a field or concede everything as art to remedy the quicksand nature of your artistic view. In either case the value of talent and skill is trivialized and all that's left is subjectivity and abstracted pedantry. This isn't an invalid decision but when you deconstruct everything you're left with nothing, no creation only base parts. If I present you with an unopened paint bucket I haven't done anything profound. What I have done is to shake a deluded art critic to his core and wasted people's time.
>>23621741With wild fevered delusions like this, anything at all could be a work of art. The only work of art I see here is your mind, your thoughts.
>>23617352The bible aa
>>23620744>reaganspoetryNarcissistic social media attention whore #352719462791 but with poetry and also is very dishonest since she's LARPing as someone looking for a boyfriend.Just an average social media narcissist with good looks but rotten inside.
>>23617352reminds me of all the middle english texts i try to read with no training just trying to brute force my genetic memory
>>23621217Very based and true. Don't expect the /lit/ pseuds to 'get' art like this. Or visual art at all.
>>23621289>implying art needs to exhibit "craftsmanship"Your grandma's hat isn't art. You don't understand what the term even means and its honestly sad.
>>23622563>implying art needs to exhibit "craftsmanship"Of course it does. The artist's striving is part of what gives it value. This is one of the things AI retards also don't understand, because they have never created or appreciated any kind of art in their entire lives. To see art as no more than something intended to make you feel and think certain things is the worst kind of escapist solipsism. You don't want a great work of sublime, hard-won beauty to admire. Only some kind of simulation/simulacrum to make you feel this or that impression or mood. I won't say it's not art, but it's a very low form of art. Graffiti, feminist slam poetry, reality TV, that kind of thing.
>>23622559>>23621217I would say this is bait but modernists really are braindead pseuds.
>>23622204I'm sorry you have no ability to recognize talent and no manners. We won't speak again.
>>23622762see: >>23620744it's very funny to call yourself an artist and then have such a shallow understanding of Art.you're right about the AI pajeets but conflating them with the abstract outs you as a midwit.
>>23622762>The artist's striving is part of what gives it value.This just isn't true. It can be but it's not necessary for imbuing art with value. I've painted some of my best stuff very quickly. I've also taken my time, striven, and agonized only to produce crap. I do want art to be sublime. I don't think you need the "hard-won" part although you can have that too and it often is required for achieving the sublime. I would wager you don't give any credence to the concept of "The Muse". I believe in her and have felt her presence myself. I think divine inspiration is in fact the key to creating a work of art. I'm not a pure AbEx fanboy like you assume. I can appreciate art from all eras. I think having an education and training in the craft is very important and often overlooked today so you have a point there and AbEx probably ushered in that false belief that you can create art without effort, so go ahead and critique works you consider to be bad but be careful not to let labels make that discernment for you. I don't think Pollock didn't put effort into his works. He was almost a religious fanatic in his principles about art and we all recognize them. Yes art has to be sublime. No it doesn't require a high degree of craftsmanship. There are some absolutely beautiful pieces of music that are quite simple. Same thing with paintings. AbEx is a great razor for identifying those who "gets it" and those that don't because as you rightly claim, there is a LOT of crap that exists under its banner. But there are also absolutely sublime works of Abstract Expressionism, Pollock having produced some of them.
>>23623007>This just isn't true. It can be but it's not necessary for imbuing art with value. I've painted some of my best stuff very quickly. I've also taken my time, striven, and agonized only to produce crap. I do want art to be sublime. I don't think you need the "hard-won" part although you can have that too and it often is required for achieving the sublime.If you're a trained artist, you've been striving all your life. Don't tell me you actually believe that his method of pouring paint, no matter how much pretence and theory might be behind it, could ever even remotely compete as a work of art with a real oil painting done by a master. It's not even close, it's not even 5% of the way there. Pollock can be fun to look at, and I appreciate him for what he is despite some of my incendiary remarks, and I can be amused by how imaginative people can get with interpreting his works >>23621741, but there is a hard limit on the value you can create with such a technique, and the limit is pretty low. >No it doesn't require a high degree of craftsmanship. There are some absolutely beautiful pieces of music that are quite simple. But you don't have nearly as much respect for them as you do for Bach, and rightly so.
>>23623007The thing is, the mind has a desperate need to ascribe meaning even to things that are entirely meaningless. It's a faculty, some combination of The imagination and sensation, whereby something, even something I've written that I know is meaningless scribbles, my mind will fight endlessly trying to ascribe meaning and emotional content to the otherwise empty sequence of random notes. This need to contextualize and fill empty forms is evidence of a higher purpose imo, suggesting that the mind assumes everything has meaning, even if it's known it doesn't. Meaninglessness does not exist, at least not in artSome like to deride this as they claim it is a lower faculty that ignores or abandons classical formalisms, but in reality theirs is a binary take on perception and emotion, and in reality art would never have meaning or have any emotional content without this projection of the individual into the art. An artist who can recognize this, and can leverage it for himself and his art, is known as a successful artist. It's not often spoken about by the brand level artists because the facts of the craft as they are are known to be alienating. people who don't participate in the craft, project their preferences onto the craft, like a desire to go unseen and hidden, or a desire for absolute artistic authority, and reject the reality the artisan must grapple and ultimately reconcile and control if he wishes to produces works of art, namely, the medium through which the art is perceived and consumed, perception and cognition Pollock is one of the great artists to grace the earth and as of yet nobody has managed to translate his method to literature. They're basically stuck on impressionism and modernism, like Debussy and Picasso, or got sucked into contemporary post modernism
>>23623287>Don't tell me you actually believe that his method of pouring paint, no matter how much pretence and theory might be behind it, could ever even remotely compete as a work of art with a real oil painting done by a master.>competeIt's not a competition and regardless, yes I do believe you can achieve a similar level of the sublime regardless of the medium/method of creation. Those should be secondary considerations when appreciating a piece of art. At least for me they are. Let's say you could create a Rembrandt by throwing paint on a canvas. Would that depreciate its value for you? There are people who spend hours and hours agonizing over making beautiful miniatures on grains of rice and shit but no one considers those beautiful works of art worthy of a place in the canon despite almost certainly requiring a higher level of skill and dedication. >But you don't have nearly as much respect for them as you do for Bach, and rightly soFunny you mention Bach, as I was thinking of Erik Satie when I made my comment about music. I understand I am probably in the minority but I'm not a fan of Bach and I actually do think Satie created superior musical art. I don't know if you know this but Pollock did have something of a classical education studying under Thomas Hart Benton so you can't say he didn't have the requisite training in the craft. Same thing with Picasso but art critics don't rate their earlier, more conservative works. Both were able to elevate their painting out of the strictures of classic representative figure painting to achieve something more sublime. Art would be staid and stale if there were no experimentation and deviation from the norm. There's a reason the classical style of someone like Ingres isn't regarded as highly as Monet or Van Gogh who were basically contemporaries. Again, this isn't to say you can't create sublime works in that style but art evolves for a reason and saying AbEx or anything outside the bounds of classical painting can't be sublime by nature of its technique is dogmatic.
>>23623325>Pollock is one of the great artists to grace the earth and as of yet nobody has managed to translate his method to literature.I don't think this can be done and as such OP is kind of a non-starter as some have pointed out. The closest thing, I suppose, would be experimental poetry. Maybe some of Kerouac's more experimental stream of consciousness stuff. But literature uses language as its medium and language is inherently a level of abstraction away from the direct perception we get with visual and musical art. They can't be compared or mapped onto one another lest your art become sign language (a reason I truly dislike a lot of performance art and Banksy-type art which to me is philosophy at best and commentary at worst).
Kill all fucking kikes and burn all of the modernist and postmodernist atrocities before it's too late.
>>23618918>Value has become for us primarily a question of metaphysics. >Our fi rst duty is to fi nd the fundamental principles on which works of art must rest, as well as those which apply to every existing work. We can gain some insight into Cubist art from Cubist tendencies in contemporary poetry. >These poets can neither imagine nor invent anything which is outside the repertoire of our hearts. >To demonstrate the distribution of states of consciousness into separate and unrelated levels, they practice a divisionism which produces a mosaic of unconscious images based on an irrational disorder-and after all, who can say that there really is a connection, and that we have not arbitrarily associated these states as if they were causally interdependent, and that this is the way consciousness proceeds; I myself, in my most obvious mo ments of disorder, have comparable conceptions. >Our judgments are clouded by a measure of sensual emotion ( owing to the sometimes rudimentary education of our senses ) . >Example : the shoemaker who, on seeing a Detaille, experiences an emotion that is just as concentrated and intense as the emotion we would experience in the presence of an Odilon Redon. ( Considering theinfuence of the time of day, the quality of the light, of a memory, of a regret, of indigestion, of our mood, is the absolute merely an average? ) If the absolute exists by itself, are we not therefore authorized to seek an art liberated from the conditions of the senses, a new art which would consummate the divorce of the sensations from reason, a geometric art which would admit only sensations of a purely intellectual order ( if such exist ) , which would owe nothing to the contribution of the senses properly speaking, that is, of our nerves?>Thus the examples of art shut up in the Louvre are worth only as much as the principles according to which they were constructed, principles whose value is precisely what is being called into question. >I hasten to say that some convention will always be necessary. >Since artists work on a fl at surface and use lines, they will not, even in the face of pure reason, be able to avoid a certain coordi nation, a certain legibility; for, being human, it is only hypo thetically that we can create relationships between planes and lines that will not be recognized by our senses. >In the last analysis, since we are unable to imagine for our reason anything tangible outside the forms presented to us by our senses, we shall be obliged to come back to representational paint ing and also to poetry, but with stricter attention to the exigencies of reason.
>>23623912Quite good
>>23623473disagree it's not possible. Pollock was trying to emulate free jazz. There aren't any counterexamples of stylistic paradigms not being translatable across mediums, it's strange writers think impressionism is expressionism
Art that got misunderstood the most. I love abstract art as long its not simplistic. That art above represent chaotic potentiality and infinite probability. The art itself peek into quantum realm and before big bang ever began. Yes big bang is the result of wave function collapsed from Quantum realm. That art is fluid and dynamic. That the state of superposition of quantum world before wave function collapsed. that how you imagine it. That art also peek into dreaming and psychedelic. Cause that how it is. Somehow dreaming, psychedelic and Quantum mechanics somehow related. Cause that world is based upon your observations. So interpret abstract expressionism also depend on your observations like quantum mechanics. Like a dream. Like in phychedelic
>>23617352The Red Book by Carl Jung Idfk what any of these other books are, but this is exactly the vibe.
>>23623287That wasn't an interpretation. If you had sense at all, you'd know Pollock's work, works which are as abstract as this, aren't meant to be interpreted. They are meant to be experienced. It was an impression and nothing more. You're pretentious and know nothing about Art. Spend less time talking and more years drawing and painting, then, maybe, you'll have something worthwhile to say.
>>23623408>I do believe you can achieve a similar level of the sublime regardless of the medium/method of creationMaybe "acheivement" is not the best word then, if sublimity is an independent quality that arises from the art itself, not its mode of production.Maybe "discovery" is better (if you envision the sublime as a static "vein" one strikes, which i don't think is the case) or "bestowal" (which is probably closer to the idea of the artist as a channel for the Muse and the art as its phylactery)Also, Metamorphoses is the closest spirit text to the OP I can think of.
>>23624840>That wasn't an interpretation. If you had sense at all, you'd know Pollock's work, works which are as abstract as this, aren't meant to be interpreted. They are meant to be experienced. It was an impression and nothing more.>You're pretentiousSaying the most pretentious and pedantic thing I've ever heard, then calling me pretentious. You're funny.
>>23625387That's because you have no idea what is or isn't pretentious, you buffoon.
>>23625565Victims of modernist mindfucking like you are simultaneously the dumbest and most pretentious people on the planet. You shouldn't be allowed to use that word.
