Is he right?

So he thinks reactionary art can't use innovative methods? He's an idiot.

Just sounds like a list of gimmicks

Originality =/= Good

I feel like we're talking about different meanings of the word "reactionary" here. There's political reaction, which is, like, opposing democracy, supporting monarchy, supporting the power of the Catholic Church, etc.. And then there's artistic reaction, which dislikes change and innovation in art forms. I feel like you can be an innovative artist while still being a political reactionary. You can yearn for the past order of things while still pushing boundaries in art.

amazon.com/Modernism-Fascism-Beginning-Mussolini-Hitler/dp/140398784X

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary_modernism

muse.jhu.edu/article/22955

jstor.org/stable/3177257

Attached: 51OddJiV+IL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 39K)

Is there actually such a thing as reactionary art stricto sensu then?
The only thing I can think of that would kinda fit that is stravinsky's neo-classicism, and then that wasn't classicism at all, just a different form of modernity.

I'm honestly not sure it's possible to make purely reactionary art, even if you try.

This. Modernism was massively embraced by fascists as well as Yeats, Elliot and Pound in literature. Then again it all depends on your definition of "reactionary" which I think doesn't exist at all. it is a pejorative and at any rate is worthless as any other kind of descriptor because its so nebulous

I take it he's never read Wolfe, Lafferty, or O'Connor?

Dono, stumbled upon him recently through the magic of youtube algorithms and dug a bit. I don't have twitter, you can always ask him.

FUCK SOCIALISM, FUCK PROGRESSIVISM
REACTIONARY IS THE RIGHT WAY

Attached: image.gif (290x200, 968K)

>reactionary art can't break the boundaries
be progressive socialist tranny faggot
>lmao im so edgy
>daddy issues
>i suck bbc's
>had a bug chanser phase
>hiv positive
>complete disappointment to family and all of humanity
>can you handle this america..?

Attached: image.jpg (1600x1329, 380K)

The left is not edgy

Is there anything more boring than this man's superficially experimental communist parables? You can tell he's nearly an automaton just by looking into his soulless eyes.

Attached: 220px-Bertolt-Brecht.jpg (220x321, 23K)

Who the fuck is Jack Saint and why should anyone bother?

ARent all those things he posted reactionary?

At this point reactionary has become little more than a buzzword for anything radical progressives don't like

There are exceptions but art belongs to the left. There's a reason the term is "liberal arts".

It clearly isn't for the reason you think.

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahshshashshahahahahahagahahhaahshhahahahaaja
OH man what a laff
Ahahagahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahabavavhaahhaahgavahahahagagabavag
Seriously fuck niggers

Who is that?

Me at family gatherings verbatim

I really, really, hope you're being sarcastic

Attached: 1541138829048.jpg (200x266, 10K)

Reactionary art is just when you react to the common artstyle of the day

Is this real or a movie and what is it because I love it.

most original reactionaries are people who switched teams, start off as a reactionary and you are 100% stupid

Liberalism itself is reactionary if we go from the point of view of a Marxist

Look nigga, you either Apollonian, or Dionysus, or you a genius who combines both

>kill the hero halfway in
Truly revolutionary

Attached: image.jpg (1255x2029, 3.07M)

Real, some Japanese nigga killing communist or something idk lol

True perfection is a unity of opposites.

Lifes true essence is devoid of rules and restrictions.
The true artist is not afaraid to push the boundaries of cultural norms.

Even you, little liberal, your bourgeois, identity politcs, multiculturalism, etc, even you are a target.

We are to act against bourgeoisie normality. You will not be restored. This is the apacolpyse bitch

Inejiro Asanuma

No wonder people are getting tempted into becoming reactionaries when people say dumb stuff like this rn

>Is there actually such a thing as reactionary art stricto sensu then?

Folk art and folklore practices comes close (if we are using that other user's definition. Still some change, but slow change). Ballads, fairy tales, folk music, local clockmaking, your grandad telling you local ghost stories, Heidegger enjoying his traditionally prepared breakfast, etc.

I am become bait.

>content = form
oh woagh

Artists are usually quite broken specimens too.

I'm weary of any person who sincerely uses the term "reactionary." They always come off like the kind of people who fantasize of killing nuns in the Spanish Civil War.

boredom is a property of the mind, if you're a boring person, everything will be boring.

Playing with identity is expensive.
If you want to push an idea or just share them, it's better to avoid giving your (not really yours) ideas a name. People are scared of magical words, especially the ones they have never heard before.
But if you don't play identity politics, you'll be thrown in some other category and in neo-reactionary's case that would be the far-right boogeyman. A somewhat justified boogeyman, maybe. But not really useful for having any kind of discourse.

After the hegemonic rise of postmodernism and neoliberal globalism, I don't think "reactionary" even has a coherent, real-world-applicable meaning anymore. Was Teddy K.'s manifesto "reactionary"? At this point, arguing that the postmodern edifice should be torn down is actually a form of radicalism, and radicalism is often interesting even when it is deliriously insane.

This is how you defend art. Take notes, Harold bloom

Isn't that the case for all art though?
It's impossible for an artist to be completely uninfluenced by the world he lives in.

chapocels seem to have this weird obsession with insisting that all art created by reactionaries is inherently bad based on like a tim allen sitcom or that painting of jesus signing the declaration of independence, rather than like dostoyevsky or balzac, or even pulp figures they have some familiarity with like lovecraft. this is completely ahistorical, and all it does is betray their own cultural illiteracy. left-wing dominance of the arts is largely a mid-to-late 20th century to present day phenomenon and has to do with a lot of factors, namely the fact of most traditional forms becoming nonviable due to historical trends and technological change.

there aren't a lot of "reactionary" artists because there aren't a lot of "reactionaries". a so-called "reactionary" in the 21st century is usually someone championing capitalism, the least conservative force that has ever existed, over socialism, arguably the only conservative force that remains. the only currently viable form of "reaction" is far-right nationalism synthesized with socialism which is taboo for obvious reasons.

I think the point is that western reactionary thinking could never produce 50's New York experimental scene, Surrealism, post-struralism ect. Stop getting tangled in rhetoric, sheesh

except there's no evidence for this. experimental writers such as nabokov and borges were both arguably "reactionaries". ezra pound was a supporter of mussolini. celine, one of the most radical and original writers of all time, was literally a nazi.

>Surrealism

Lmao. Dali was a known fascist.

But do you think those movements would have arisen under a reactionary or fascist regime?

>Then again it all depends on your definition of "reactionary" which I think doesn't exist at all
Nah there are genuine posters here and in both /pol/s that would call themselves that.

>not deep

Attached: Celine.jpg (196x266, 9K)

The lengths you people will go to convince yourself that conservatism is cool is absolutely insane.

The amount of times I’ve seen “le conservative is the new punk” then huge logical jumps to describe their reasoning completely baffles me in its commonality

It’s like all you guys have for a personality is a political tribe, than you just fill in the rest of the mad lib from there.

conservatism is just the lazy man's default option when they see how deeply uncool the left has become, so they aren't going to be putting much effort into the hard sell, which is why it principally is just swear words and drawings of a cartoon frog.

>being sad is deep

Celine wasnt sad. He was extremely cynical and misanthropic, but not sad. The joy with which he describes horrible things is one of his defining characteristics.

Lolol I’ve seen all those things dozens and dozens of time. I’d even argue they’re overdone There’s nothing mold-breaking about it in the slightest. Disregarding as run of the mill twitter spew not worth discussing.

The most aesthetic thing reactionaries ever did was literally co-opting an anti-consumerist genre for their own

>deep as a descriptive term
What do you mean by this?

>le conservative is the new punk

No one is making that argument. It has zero connection to the topic being discussed. You're literally incapable of thinking outside of Twitter memes.

And yes, being far-right, i.e. fascist or fascist adjacent, not "conservative", is actually dangerous. You'll be fired and shunned and possibly assaulted for espousing far-right viewpoints. You won't for being a Maoist or whatever. You can't on the one hand say that white supremacy/fascism/nazism/etc. is pure evil and anyone who espouses it needs to be beaten or killed and then treat it like it's the same thing as Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder or whatever.

>You won't for being a Maoist or whatever.
You are being shunned for a Maoist...

Imagine pretending to be this much of a victim

Alright user, I’ll pretend your as special as you want to be

>It’s like all you guys have for a personality is a political tribe, than you just fill in the rest of the mad lib from there.

projection. the topic was about whether reactionaries can make good art. some people responded and said they can, listing examples. you don't have a defense, so you're just falling back on the thing of "it is you who are mad, i'm actually laughing!!1".

>the topic was about whether reactionaries can make good art.
Nah the twitter faggot literally said original or novel art that you people conflate to mean 'good art' so you can grandstand and preach the normal talking points your kind always does.

>the lengths
>typing two short paragraphs and listing some authors

lol fuck off, retard

>original and novel

and examples were given of that

it doesn't sound like he's pretending to be a victim at all considering everything he said was accurate, regardless of his own association with those matters

even zizek agrees that the right 'out punks' the left, and hes supposed to be on your side. more? mark fisher. his thought was abandoned by the left and is supported more by right leaning groups. more? how do you call the left punk nowadays when every issue you fight for is backed by the media monster and financial institutions youre supposed to counter? more? the disenfranchised and deplatformed rightwingers echo the punks of before. if you think punk is identitarian youre probably projecting.

Sorry m8, I was being off topic.
I don’t really have an argument about reactionary art, and I don’t really have a strong opinion either way

My post was purely about right oriented people making logical loop holes to jump through to validate their political ideologies somehow being Cutting edge or something
Cutting edge might not be the word, it’s hard to articulate, other user was right punk isn’t the word either. But it’s like they want to make themselves out to be like martyrs or some shit, and grow their ego. it’s very common, and it surprised me

But none of them are novel though?

nice bait, but liberals are right-wing

Céline was groundbreaking

But Zizek said the language policing and moralistic were reversed between the Left and Right. And no one listens to Mark Fisher except Zero Books and Jacobin...

Celine wasn't in that post's examples you retard. Try to keep up.

These threads would be sort of understandable on Yea Forums or something, but people here have no excuse for making them when daily threads are made about Dosotevsky, Nabokov, Mishima, Thomas Mann, etc. Either you guys don't read the books you pretend to or you're being willfully ignorant of your favorite authors' politics. If anything, I'd say far-right views are overrepresented among great authors.

So because someone else listed it, it doesn't count? You're really fucking desperate, dude.

>he's this incapable of having a conversation

Attached: dws-hofman-rubber-duck-macao-770px.jpg (770x412, 128K)

lmao. leftists on Yea Forums react to right-wing authors like that british soldier did the nose on the sphinx.

Punk was never punk to begin with. It was a great product, bias a movement it was impotent, and as a form of music it had nothing to really offer. The only people who think that punk was truly some radical thing are those who think James Baldwin’s sentimental writing are too. In essence they’re severely misguided, and their discourse is completely standardized.

No dumbass, it doesn't count in countering or even relevant to my point about the post that someone else made.

If you want to get back on track in talking about reactionary being novel, Celine was reactionary after writing his innovative work though. Plus one example doesn't bulk a trend.

what do you mean by apollonian or dionysian?

>Yea Forums - Literature

>Celine was reactionary after writing his innovative work though.

this is pathetic, and not even true btw.

Didn't he start ranting about Jews and shit after writing that book?

i'm not 100% on the timeline, but i know he made a bunch of pro-nazi statements years before the war.

What did he say that was accurate? His post was a stream of liberal truisms repeated on twitter ad nauseam. There’s no discourse in our world more standardized and homogenized then the one that surrounds the left at the moment.

He ranted about Jews and shit after he wrote the book

jej

Of course reactionnaries can make art, or valued philosophy. It's c*nservatives who are worthless

>he makes anti-semitic political statements a couple years after writing his first novel
>well i guess i'm just going to assume he was a rose emoji social democrat before then

what a weird argument.

Now who is the one being desperate with the needless strawmanning? I am only assuming that he was not a reactionary until after he started writing reactionary shit.

why? you don't have any other statements from him. why assume he did a sudden 180 a couple years later? and what would that even prove? are you trying to argue that his creative energies vanished the second he started saying things you dislike? this is so stupid.

Ars liberalis holds an inherently aristocratic connotation. It's an education worthy of only a 'free person' and only a classically educated person can be said to be truly free.

Attached: 1549998818518.jpg (800x450, 104K)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inejiro_Asanuma

>why assume he did a sudden 180 a couple years later? and what would that even prove
Again the desperation to strawman. I never his opinions were reversed, only that it wasn't reactionary.

>are you trying to argue that his creative energies vanished the second he started saying things you dislike? this is so stupid.
Thank god you think so too coz that is not what I said. I only implied he was past his innovative stage when he was in full blown reactionary.

>when every issue you fight for is backed by the media monster and financial institutions
You’re living in your own little fantasy world.

So called reactionary art is neat though. Beauty is rebellious.

Attached: povratak-hiperborejaca-dragos-kalajic.jpg (829x400, 101K)

Attached: logos.png (886x540, 339K)

"most of the agreed major writers of the twentieth century - Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Lawrence, - are Political Conservatives who each had truck with Fascism. Marxist Criticism rather than apologising for that fact, explains it - sees that, in the absence of genuinely revolutionary art, only a radical conservatism, hostile like Marxism to the withered values of liberal bourgeois society, could produce the most significant literature"
Terry Eagleton - Marxism and Literary Theory

Most of the time it is. Always is a fucking leap and a bound away from the truth though.

Based and ropepilled

You haven't been paying attention have you?

>tfw no truck with fascism
Marxoids don't seem to get that fascism is eugenic and measured socialism where Marxism is extreme, dysgenic socialism. Fascism has more spergs but communism is way spergier and less realistically functional of an ideology.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 131K)

>fascism is measured socialism
The absolute state of the modern fash movement.

I am Jack's detachable penis of intersectional aesthetics.

>modern fash movement

what he's saying isn't new.

that is vomit inducing

Nothing has made fascism more attractive than progressive activists.

Mussolini was a Marxist before he became a fascist. The two ideologies aren't nearly as opposed as 20th century power struggles between them has led both sides to think they are. Nazbol gang gang and conservative capitalists have realized this but most Chapo House niggers and redpilled haircut seekers seem unaware.

I have no idea what you are even saying

t. agoraphobic homosexual

Attached: 1f648247fc37a4f9f48a612c55feb056.jpg (750x534, 68K)

>break things thought unbreakable
then i choose to break the practice of breaking the unbreakable

Attached: 1544890867489.jpg (426x454, 45K)

anti-consumerism is reactionary tho

Corporations don't give a shit about social justice unless when they pretend to for free advertisement.
Anyway the establishment is still pretty fucking conservative.

>Anyway the establishment is still pretty fucking conservative.

In what sense? "The establishment" in 2019 has congealed into a weird mix of globalist techno-oligarchs and their paid lackeys inside of "democratic" political systems. There aren't many modern artists who address the sheer weirdness of all of this stuff. Adam Curtis actually sort of does, which makes his films interesting despite their parodic aspects.

Or here's another example of the modern neoliberal blob devouring what used to be "leftism" - Edward Abbey was considered some kind of anarcho-primitivist-leftist when he wrote "Desert Solitaire" in 1968. He was considered to be on the left because his politics did not square up with what was considered "conservative" at the time. He was a staunch environmentalist, among other things. He didn't change his positions, but by the mid-1980's, he was being attacked as a racist/fascist because of his strong support for immigration restrictions. His sense was that the fragile ecology of the southwest didn't need more people trampling it, and certainly not illiterate Latin peasants with a propensity to litter everywhere.

Was he a "reactionary"? That would have been a bizarre characterization of his ideology in the late-60's, but by today's standards, leftists consider him Hitler Jr. And in this, leftists are 100% doing the bidding of the open-borders corporatist oligarchy.

Attached: Edward Abbey quote.jpg (850x400, 32K)

>left-wing dominance of the arts is largely a mid-to-late 20th century to present day phenomenon and has to do with a lot of factors, namely the fact of most traditional forms becoming nonviable due to historical trends and technological change.

more like "due to promotion by Anglo-American intelligence"

Not in the anglo-saxon meaning of hte word

>Rubens entire counter-reformation oeuvre

Attached: im sorry but what you have just said is so colossally retarded i need to take a lie down.png (601x595, 473K)

I hate communists, but I actually like some of his music, especially the Kannonen Lied

They will just tell you that the right is appropriating their shit, fucking hilarious. The idea of a third position is entirely incomprehensible to them.

But if you're consciously returning to folk traditions in order to recover a lost past, then you've already fundamentally transformed those traditions into something new, since an authentic folk tradition couldn't be aware of its own anachronism.

In some sense, as soon as you are thinking about the place of your art in history, it is impossible to make art that is not modern. The only art, if it can even be called art, that escapes this trap would be something entirely unaware of its historical status as art—something like the drawings of a young child, or internet fanart, or maybe certain forms of popular entertainment. Of course, for us at least, even these works—and maybe even all historical art—in some sense counts as modern art. Or perhaps more precisely, our very idea of what counts as art already contains the requirement that it be modern art.

try again in a few years

Attached: bashar.jpg (272x185, 5K)

>listening to trannies ever
objectively the worst and most cringe mental illness