>Greeks distinguished techne from poiesis>Kant distinguished aesthetic judgment from the agreeable>Adorno distinguished autonomous art from culture industry products>Schopenhauer distinguished real art from mere distractionWhy are people today absolutely incapable of understanding or even registering these distinctions?I physically recoil when someone points to some fantasyslop written by a mentally ill woman with a Patreon, or a disposable Taylor Swift single manufactured by 20 producers and marketed to teenagers, and calls it "art".We really ought to start distinguishing between the basic act of pumping out entertainment for consumption and the creation of something meant to express what can't be reduced to market logic again. Not everything humans vomit out counts as art in the stronger sense of the word.
>>24882410Market forces. Its over.
It’s mostly just semantics, really.
Stop aesthetic theorizing altogether. It will always be abused to promote shit, never help anyone to create or appreciate anything.>is Pooh Scheisty the new Mozart? according to Heidegger viewed through a Spenglerian-feminist lens it's inevitable.
Sure, but if you explained this shit to a normoid, they'd probably start talking over top of you (because they can't focus for longer than 20 second soundbites). What you need to say is something short but condescending, along the lines of: >"Taylor Swift is the McDonald's of music. Just cause they sell the most burgers doesn't mean they sell the best burgers." If this doesn't awaken the normoid, nothing will. Don't waste your breathe on them; spend that time making good art.
>>24882451>breatheI'm retarded. My point still stands.
Because these authors didn't exist at a time of mass pop culture, you're asking an extremely retarded question trying to force yourself into an elavated position with minimal effortThis would be like bemoaning the fact that no one on the street can distinguish between a clear cut tyrant and a proper philosopher-king, when niggas would just stare at you and say, sir, we have a democracyYou need to get into media theory, I suggest Friedrich Kittler
>>24882410the greatest works of literature were written with a dominant entertainment motive.
>>24882445If it's all semantics to you, you're proving my point.>>24882447Abuse of a concept doesn't invalidate the concept.>>24882451Yeah, I get that. I'm just asking you guys what you think, since this is the only place where you can even bring this stuff up without everyone immediately losing their shit.>>24882464I don't think the distinction between entertainment and art is somehow invalidated by the existence of mass media. And I don't think that analogy really works; it's more like asking people to differentiate between philosopher-kings and democracy while living in a democracy. People can still grasp the concepts, they just don't bother. But thanks for the recommendation.
>>24882410It's been discussed ad nauseam, but the term "content" has destroyed art. When Beethoven and Taylor Swift can be placed on an equal playing field via being recognized as "content creators," then there's no point in trying to explain or define true art from slop to passive consumers, which is what the market depends on. It's just another sign of capitalistic decay; the search for deeper human experience and meaning done away with in exchange for profit and increased market share.
>>24882410Taylor's daddy asked her what she wanted for her 13th birthday and she said she wanted to be a rock star. She has very, very little input into "her" music.
>>24882451
>And they are smiling, the arena floor slamming under the All-stars and the fans grinning hideously over their official merchandise. Towering over them all is Tay Tay and she is smiling, her big lips lively and quick and practiced and stretching at the ladies, huge and plastic and empty, like and enormous mannequin. She never fakes, she says. She says she's just like you. She bows to the fans and sashays backwards and throws back her head and smiles red on the lips and she is a great favorite, Tay Tay. She sways her hair and the straightened locks of her skull pass glimmering under the lights and she swings about and sings about one of her exes and she moans and it's two exes, three exes, four and five exes at once. Her lips are light and nimble. She never fakes. She says that she's just like you. She smiles in light and in shadow and she is a great favorite. She never fakes, Tay Tay. She is smiling, smiling. She says that she's just like you.
>>24882469Pound says the exact opposite, about the Odyssey even, in The Constant Preaching to the Mob in his literary essays.
>>24882410where does esoteric sfw furry art fall on this scale
>>24882469This isn't really true for the Aeneid. It is certainly a "secondary epic" like the Commedia or Paradise Lost, and not a primary one like the Iliad or Beowulf, but it's also supposed to fulfill the entertainment role. It is also better than Homer, although Dante retains the Laurel Crown, probably for all time given what has happened to literature.
>>24882445Soulless, fat, snobbish retard response.
>>24882779The point was that Homer was composed to move an audience, while Virgil, Dante and Milton were largely literary exercises aimed at fame and admiration. Virgil never addressed the Roman working man of his day, but only the well-to-do and influential, whom he reminded that they were the salt of the earth. One classicist put it 'the Iliad is not beautiful but sublime; the Aeneid is not sublime but beautiful.’
>>24882469>>24882779So sick of these midwit arguments. It's like comparing a nuke to a bone club. Yeah, they're both "weapons." There's almost no useful context in which you'd actually want to group them together. "A history of weaponry," that's about it.
>>24882987not fully sure what you’re getting at there.
>>24883010that swift's music industrial product is the same as the odyssey because well heck they're both entertainment conscious of broad appeal to a certain extent.
>>24883050then why’d you reply to the other anon comparing the virgil to homer?& that was never really my argument. just that separating ‘art’ from ‘entertainment’ is a wrong move. actually we should take everything on its own merits.
>>24883065>then why’d you reply to the other anon comparing the virgil to homer?because I felt bothered to type out my post when I read his
>>24882410Taylor swift isn't considered a child prodigy in music. However, this guy is for having perfect pitch and unbelievable knowledge of music theory and the ability to transpose music into other modes and styles immediately with no practice.https://youtu.be/QU1DdnQ7_zU?si=4rW8ax8V29NnZkbGHowever, his singing voice sounds like if a deaf kid got super good at hitting the right notes playing rock band.
>>24883088oh not this overblown algo clickbait faggot again
>>24883093I'm sure he makes more money off of youtube than his music. For me, it's louis cole.https://youtu.be/NDpeHQUSWT0?si=aBn1ScR_xNFnloAS
what do i need to read before reading schopenhaur
>>24883113Elliot rodger
>>24882410>stop liking what I don't likelol
>>24883098>roastie
>>24882451>they'd probably start talking over top of you
>>24883088What is the literary equivalent of Jacob Collier.
>>24883122She's certainly not a prodigy. In 20 years she has gotten no better at playing guitar or piano or singing. Everything is open chord strumming in c or g. Everything on piano is in c so she only has to play white keys. She does do some key change modulations when she was young which is probably the only somewhat interesting thing. This is very common in classic country though.
>>24883152They did mention they're retarded.
>>24883161probably that Emily Something cunt who did the feminist odyssey translation
So what counts as high art nowadays
>>24883244Flinging shit at a wall and shoving a banana up your ass
>>24883244Gay nigga sex
>>24883151Louis cole is the drummerhttps://youtu.be/6Gha9xrM10w?si=Ms-L2unpzl9R2MUl
>>24882797You forgot lazy and dishonest as well.
>>24883088>perfect pitchThis shit is impressive only to normies/non-musicians.>unbelievable knowledge of music theorySeems pretty standard for someone who studies music all his life.>ability to transpose music into other modes and styles immediately with no practiceAny decent musician knows how to do this.But Collier is truly fucking awful.
>>24883122Yeah… if that's the level of reading comprehension you're operating with, then this thread is clearly above your pay grade. This is exactly the intellectual ceiling I was talking about.
>>24883380Most musicians could transpose keys on the fly, not modes.
>>24883402People who know all the keys also know the modes, anon. It's not that complicated.
>>24883406You think that most musicians could transpose a melody line into phrygian on the fly? Or are you just saying within the circle of fifths just playing the chord numbers transposed to phrygian? I'm saying he can take the melody to a song and transpose that to another mode not just paint by number change the chords being played based on the circle of fifths.
>>24883423I said 'decent', not 'most'.
>>24883458I don't think most decent musicians could even transpose outside of basic key changes. Most musicians specialize in their particular genre and get good at tricks within those. Especially mechanically, sure many could take the time to deliberately work it out. But very very few could do it on the fly. Most pianists get good at a few things within the styles they play frequently and learn modes and scales specific to those. They aren't fuckboy robots who compute it instantly like data from star trek as collier does. The problem with him is number one his vocal timbre is horrific and sounds like a deaf person who has a pitch chip installed, and number two that he has too many options and can't compose anything memorable and with sovl.
>>24883490I do think it's funny that he found the guitar too difficult and had to custom make one tuned in 5ths because 4ths and a 3rd was just too confusing for him.
>>24883366and yet you can't write "wrong"
>>24883423It all used to be standard fare in western musical tradition. You can look up partimento.Also transposing between keys (on a piano) is much harder than transposing to another mode, imo.Also worth mentioning that musical prodigies are a dime a dozen, perfect pitch etc is all just a matter of early childhood exposure. Some parents might cultivate bonsai, some make musical prodigies, it's whatever.
>>24882441stop blaming all your problems on capitalism, commie!
>>24883530I think he could both change the key and mode at the same time to anything you wanted while adding substitutions to it or could do it in every key while inverting to specifically any note you asked on the bottom etc. You could ask him to play the 7th of a chord then the 9th of a chord inverted in every key following a song you gave him and he could do that while playing the melody in the key and mode of your choice. Mechanically and on theory he is a calculator with it. But he can't write good music.
>>24883152You haven't ever tried to challenge a normie>>24883167My point still stands
>>24882410The death of Rockism and the triumph of Poptimism has been a disaster for the human race
>>24883098Thank you for this, it's incredible
>>24882410Taylor Swift is great. Stop being a pseud, no one who matters is impressed by your inability to enjoy things.
>>24883823here's my thinkpiece on TS:if taylor swift had big knockers her female audience (ie her entire audience) would be twenty times smaller.
>>24883855>as a popstar, Taylor Swift is tastefully pretty Wow! Stop the presses!
>>24883887that feels like a wilful misreading of my real point.
>>24883823Tay tay is not a good musician or singer. What she is good at is writing lyrics that appeal to women. She is a god at that.
>>24883904in a world of taylor swifts and ariana grandes, lana del rey is women’s saving grace.
>>24883855Agreed. Women love propping up subpar women and saying "she's a 10." As a consequence, they get to perceive themselves as 10s because they are on par with Taylor Swift. It's true that many women are on par with Swift, but the reality is that she is a 6/10 at best.
>>24883940This I will not agree with. Tay tay may suck at music but she is hot as fuck and the perfect female height.
>>24883940not exactly what i meant.but i think she does seem weirdly sexless. and i think being ‘relatable’ might be one of the most distasteful and ironically most fake currencies of modern pop culture.
>>24882410In my experience people distinguish between "real" and "fake" art all the time, but most people don't even know by what criteria they're making that distinction and a lot of it comes down to marketing these days
>>24883989robert graves said of poetry; to tell the good from the bad is the same as telling good fish from bad, surely from the smell, use your nose - and the real from the artificial: real fish will smell real and artificial fish will have no smell at all.
>>24883947Costume & make-up can make anyone look good. She's flat chested and sexless, as the other anon said. >>24883972Then what do you mean? Big breasts would drop her appeal because she'd become an actual threat, ideologically.
>>24884055i wasn’t trying to call her mid or make a mysoginist-coded post. it wasn’t really about her looks at all, more of a characteristic.
Zena LaVey was a child prodigy?
>>24884090Why do you care? We're at war here
>>24883904>she's not a good musician >she's a good lyricist Pseud.
>>24884055She's what's known as tall and lithe. If you weren't an incel you'd have an appreciation for that body type.
>>24884163Lyrics are the least important part of music.
>>24884055>Costume & make-up can make anyone look good. She's flat chested and sexless, as the other anon said.So is cate blanchett and yet I want to fuck her too
>>24883522I can: wrong. Now what?
>>24883823>your inability to enjoy thingssee >>24883383
>>24883122>>24883823Interesting how you can't actually engage with OP's argument, but only interpret it as them not liking something, as if that's even relevant to the debate, and can only emotionally react. Are you a woman or homosexual, by any chance? In any case, sounds like you're a butthurt Swiftie.
>>24883244loli hentai
>>24882410So whats a good book that explains the battle between certain art movements for cultural dominance throughout history?
When a culture is born, there are jesters.As the culture peaks, jesters become artists.As a culture unravels, art becomes mass media.As a culture collapses, media becomes critique.
>>24883536Wtf? I love capitalism. Makes people endlessly seethe
>>24884724>>24884739OP is a pseud and you're weird for projecting emotional investment into throwaway shitposts.
>>24882410If someone enjoys taylor swift they enjoy Taylor swift what exactly is your point. I dont think many people would say shes as good as a classical composer although saying shes not art is retarded. Just because you dont like it doesn't mean its not art. Actually now that I think about it it might be better art because of how emotional it makes people like you
>>24885225if your definition of art makes taylor swift art, fine - but your argument hasn’t shown why someone else must accept that definition.
>>24882469entertainment is just a word. you can't reify it into an eternal category. the pleasures of storytelling in ancient greece, or of the theatre in elizabethan london, are not the same kind of pleasures as are provided by the commodified leisure time distractions we have today.entertainment today is only the other side of endless work and accelerating production, and in that context even shakespeare and homer can become commodified leisure-time distractions, something to gulp down as part your daily hustle routine, as you do supplements or podcasts. do you think anyone watching the nolan odyssey will feel even a flicker of what a guy must have felt when, his day of a craftsman's labours behind him, a god's festival awaiting him tomorrow, he sat in the warm breeze blowing in from the aegaen, and surrounded by friends, and sipping cups of wine, heard the blind poet begin?to really take enjoyment seriously in a work of art today would mean creating art that rages at the meagreness of contemporary forms of enjoyment. it would mean opposing with stern severity the cheerful marketeers who always aim to please. it would mean doing what the modernists did, and creating works that seem ugly, confusing, and alien, because they seek to please a species of human that doesn't yet exist, one more advanced than the pig-species bred to serve the narrow needs of the capitalists.
>>24885310homer had to earn his slices of roast mutton and cup of honey-sweet wine. shakespeare had to sell tickets. when picasso invented a new language of painting, cubism, he painted casserole dishes that every commoner had in their kitchen. they all wanted to persuade the public to accept their art. to do that, you have to play the part of a prostitute. put on a bit of make-up, be a little bit dishonest, you have to give something the public can follow. the reason ‘art’ has fallen more and more out of the public conscious (& out of good entertainment) is because the ordinary person has been shown in harsh terms it is no longer made for him. in the 19th century the ordinary reader was happy because the great writers such as dickens, trollope and george eliot wrote for him. in the 20th century he is seriously worried because what he reads is arid, unenjoyable, and not infrequently incomprehensible.your idea that art must be obscure or hostile in order to be ‘serious’ is just historically false. shakespeare wrote for the groundlings, the unscholarly globe patrons who walked in from the cockfight on the street. only those whose blood courses hot through their veins can understand his lines. and even today shakespeare still brings money to producers and fame to actors.
>>24885193Throwaway or not, they contain no argument; just like your post.
>>24885225You keep bringing up enjoyment because you can't address the actual distinction being made. Whether someone enjoys Taylor Swift is irrelevant; people enjoy junk food, Marvel movies, and TikTok reels, but that has nothing to do with whether something counts as art in the stronger sense of the word. Calling something "art" just because you like it isn’t an argument.
>>24885425>the reason ‘art’ has fallen more and more out of the public conscious (& out of good entertainment) is because the ordinary person has been shown in harsh terms it is no longer made for him. in the 19th century the ordinary reader was happy because the great writers such as dickens, trollope and george eliot wrote for him. in the 20th century he is seriously worried because what he reads is arid, unenjoyable, and not infrequently incomprehensible.>your idea that art must be obscure or hostile in order to be ‘serious’ is just historically false. shakespeare wrote for the groundlings, the unscholarly globe patrons who walked in from the cockfight on the street. only those whose blood courses hot through their veins can understand his lines. and even today shakespeare still brings money to producers and fame to actors.Nta, but while this explanation is legitimate as far as it goes, it's not the whole picture and the collapse wasn't one-sided. It wasn't just that 20th century artists suddenly became hostile or obscure, but the audience also changed. Literacy, vocabulary and general education fell off a cliff. The average 19th century middle class reader really did command a far wider vocabulary and cultural frame of reference than the average American (or Westerner in general) today. Victorian middle class readers often read long form serialized novels weekly, while today most people consume fragments, headlines and algorithmic content.Sure, some art became more difficult, but society simultaneously stopped trying to raise people to meet it. Mass culture shifted toward lowest common denominator entertainment, education narrowed and people's linguistic competence shrank.
>>24885574Let's stop beating around the bush as to why culture has degraded.
>>24885574it’s not as though the english novel tradition suddenly died with austen. there were still post-war writers like evelyn waugh, kingsley amis and angus wilson who kept the line alive. and they were commercial successes. even P.G. wodehouse, who wrote with extraordinary verbal precision, had a massive audience. the victorian reader had a larger vocabulary and cultural frame of reference, but they also had writers who addressed them directly and assumed their intelligence and wanted their attention. dickens and eliot didn’t write in some private language and wait for the masses to catch up; they raised people upward by giving them something to hold on to. once you train audiences to expect nothing from high art except difficulty, obscurity or ideological homework, they’ll naturally turn elsewhere. mass culture didn’t shift downward spontaneously; the upward pull disappeared.
>>24884722now you're wrong
>>24885425so it seems like art was all bullshit after all. Thank god AI is replacing it all in the future.
>>24885695When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and gold, Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mold; And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart, Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?"
>>24884090>Using lower-case letters to make you seem smaller and weaker>"mysoginist-coded [sic]" >"it [isn't] about her looks at all"No one believes you're a woman. Also, for future reference, it's misogynist. "mis" as in miserable, "gyn" as in gynecologist. Know the roots and you'll never misspell it again. >>24884166pig-nosed and flat. Yuck!
>>24885722there’s a latin tag: our good homer himself occasionally nods. though ‘mis’ here doesn’t actually share a root word with miserable, which comes from latin. mis is from greek.>No one believes you're a woman.good. seeing as i’m a big strong trans man.
>>24885736Pfft, next you'll tell me miso soup isn't a hateful soup.
>>24884769Based
>>24885541There's an argument but you're too dumb and delusional to pick up on it.
>>24882410comparing taytay to beethoven is incredible bait, here's a (you)
>>24883635tbf Rockism has no road to travel after it runs its course. The mentality behind rock was to tear down the old and live however you want. Building up rock into something more is antithetical to its entirety
>>24883931Lana Del Ray is Taylor Swift for women who are too self aware to like Taylor Swift but are still normies at the end of it all
I honestly think normies are not sapient. After many years I've concluded that sapience in human beings is an anomaly.
