Art which possesses neither public responsibility, nor aesthetic originality, is a very humble form of art. While for much of history, the concept of art did not yet exist, it is clear that there were works of art being produced. It may even be said that art came naturally to the rhapsodes who were later collectively referred to as Homer, when (initially) composing the lyrical interludes of the Iliad, and later making the whole poem lyrical. But these works necessarily laid emphasis on the side of themselves which were τέχνη, until the event of early Romanticism, as defined by Hamann and Herder, in opposition to Kant. It was not until Yeats' middle period that the idea of a unifying system of public responsibility (τέχνη) and aesthetic originality (art) became proper. Since the deaths of Eliot, Pound, Bunting, and others, High Modernism has been reacted against, by the humble Romanticism of gentlemen like Larkin (in England), and the Post-Modernist experiments of gentlemen like Ashbery (in America). My theory is that this is both caused by and contributing to the general downfall of our society, since verse used to, and no longer does, bother to influence society, in any meaningful manner. Until this idea has been revitalised, there may as well be no art at all, considering it simply stands as a kind of cask-monolith, pretending to do what it does not itself even understand.
Art which possesses neither public responsibility, nor aesthetic originality, is a very humble form of art...
1. HOMEROS WAS AN ACTUAL PERSON, AND HE WAS CERTAINLY THE AUTHOR OF «ILIAD» —OF «ODYSSEY» IT IS DOUBTFUL.
2. POETRY IS A MEDIUM, NOT AN END IN ITSELF; IN THE PAST, POETRY HAD IMPORTANCE THAT TRANSCENDED ITSELF BECAUSE IT WAS UTILIZED AS A MEDIUM TO COMMUNICATE IDEAS THAT ORIGINATED BEYOND POETRY; IN PRESENT, OTHER FORMS HAVE SUBSTITUTED POETRY AS INSTRUMENTS FOR SOCIOPOLITICAL ENDS —EXEMPLI GRATIA: THE TREATISE, THE ESSAY, THE DOCUMENTARY, PHOTOGRAPHY, ET CETERA.
3. THE SOCIOPOLITICAL AMBIT IS ITSELF BANAL; CRAFT TRANSCENDS THE AMBIT OF ARTISANSHIP, INTO THE AMBIT OF ARTISTRY, BECOMING ART, WHEN IT IS IMPELLED, AND DIRECTED, BY AN IDEAL BEYOND THE CONTINGENCY OF CRAFT ITSELF, NOT NECESSARILY WHEN IT HAS «SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY»; «SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY» MERELY TURNS CRAFT INTO AN INSTRUMENT; A SUBLIME IDEAL TURNS CRAFT INTO SACRED WORK.
your pathetic larping turned you into a posturing retard
Art isnt there for society, society is there so art might be made. This is putting the cart before the horse. Art can influence society, but the reason for making art with this function should not be the influence it might have, but that such art can be aesthetically powerful and evocative. Aesthetic, soul moving art should be the highest virtue in any society, anything else should be done only if it serves that imperative
There are many humble forms of art, though. And I am not implying that being socially responsible turns an artisan in to an artist; on the contrary, a merely responsible artisan is still an artisan, but he can be both responsible and and artist. This is one of the main points of The Principles of Art by R. G. Collingwood.
I would appreciate if you elaborated on what exactly you understand to be an ideal. For me, ideally, a piece of art is something both genuinely creative, and genuinely dutiful. Its ideal is contained within itself and realises itself in the specific nuances of its philosophy.
The two intermingle and contribute to each other. There is no such thing as aesthetic power, soul, or evocation. This is superstition and a panacea. There is one thing that exists in this particular realm of art; genuine creativity.
STOP STOOPING.
I said neither "aesthetic power" nor did I say evocation. Aesthetically powerful, as in, strongly inhabiting the quality of beauty/aesthetics, not "Aesthetic power", a power sourced from aesthetics. And "evocative", not evocation.
There is no such thing as aesthetically powerful art? What? Are you denying the existence of an emotional state? There is probably no soul as religion describes it, but I'm clearly just colorfully referring to the emotional core of a human, the part of us "moved" by art. Evocation has multiple meanings while evocative holds one, and it simply means to strongly call something, like emotion; imagery, feeling, memory. There is nothing superficial about it.
Being genuinely creative does not really mean evoking beauty in art, since beauty is pretty much a term used to describe something pornographic.
I stand corrected, though; there is an emotional state, that may be sporadically caused by art, but this should everywhere be known as a general panacea, and is something I would associate with the humble art of Romanticism.
Besides, you failed to acknowledge the argument. An artist doesn't need to be dutiful, because the highest with imaginable is to the art itself. If an art is detrimental to every other sector of society, but manages to be great art onto itself, the artist is virtuous.
*highest duty
people weren't ignoring your user posts because they were lower case, it was because they're boring
>CERTAINLY THE AUTHOR OF «ILIAD»
this is further than you have authority to go
Art needs to be dutiful, because art only stays genuine by being interested in politics, both artistically and generally, in that it causes a genuinely new paradigm in the art world to exist. If the world is to be genuinely artistic, then art needs to participate in the other aspects of society than its own sphere, or rather; its sphere is all spheres, since all of them have always been intermingled and the demarcation of various spheres is only a recent fetish.
AN IDEAL IS AN ARCHETYPAL IMAGE; THE END OF ART SHOULD BE TO REIFY THE IDEAL IN THE FORM, THROUGH THE MEDIUM, THAT HAVE BEEN SELECTED; THE IDEAL IS NOT CONTINGENT TO THE CRAFT, NOR TO THE ART.
ARTISANSHIP IS CRAFT FOR ITS OWN SAKE; ARTISTRY IS ART FOR ITS IDEAL'S SAKE.
When you type of archetype, are you referring to the Jungian notion?
THE ARCHETYPICAL IS WHAT IT IS, REGARDLESS OF WHOMEVER'S NOTION OF IT; STOP BEING MORBIDLY OBSESSED.
I, unfortunately, see the end of art, not as the realisation of some ever-present image, but as a state of constant creative innovation, but if you think that is obsessive, then so be it.
Art doesn't need to be dutiful to be genuine ot enter a new paradigm, this is a claim without any reasonable argument behind it. Does art need to participate in something outside it's own sphere? Not necessarily, but it almost always does. Of everything, dutiful subjects are not even close to the majority of possible outside inspiration and transformation. It can also be said that art CANNOT be dutiful unless it puts art before duty. Almost any movement or social initiative that doesn't favor art is detrimental to the rest of society.
I also reject that beauty needs to be "pornographic" or even that that is a valid dismissal, you haven't defined your values, it sounds like you don't know what they are and are arbitrarily dismissing or favouring things because you have decided without context that they are bad or good. You continuously use the term panacea, but I've explicitly said, art is the cart, not the horse, art is not a solution, art is what we should strive for at the cost of anything else. Not because it'll give us a better horse, but because it is the goal itseld
YOU DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE COMPREHENDED MY PREVIOUS POST, OR ANY OF MY PREVIOUS POSTS, FOR THAT MATTER.
OF COURSE IF YOU HAVE NO LITERARY
just joking i'm not a cancerous idiot
if you have no literary judgement, no ability to see a work of art as it really is, you spend your time groping for guidelines like what reviewers have said or might say about it, what movement it seems to fall into, where it seems to be aiming, whether its style strikes you as normal or not, above all whether it can be called important or not - which is far easier to decide than whether the thing is any good or not.
You want me to define beauty, when I already have. For me, genuine art is not beautiful; it is creative.
That idea of intuitive judgement is itself quite despotic. Eliot wrote of some Coleridgeans he knew from a society who were incredibly despotic about their art. In the end, art is a revelation of facts concerning itself, and needs to be understood.
But to me, genuity and creativity are beautiful. Does creativity have inherent worth to you?
I would say I understand creativity as a kind of surge or release of energy and I believe we should pursue this release, but honestly I have never went this deep (considering the actual value of artistic creativity). I have always just taken it for granted.
intellect and habit starve out imagination. poetry is composed at the back of the mind: an unaccountable product of a trance in which the emotions of love, fear, anger, or grief are profoundly engaged, though at the same time powerfully disciplined; in which intuitive thought reigns supralogically.
i've not read him, but it seems like your collingwood has raised the ghosts of long dead philistines who thought the poet a liar and history the only truth.
Then enjoy the "ecstacy" of that panacea. When you finally get bored of this superstition, consider reading him.
i'm just being honest.
>consider reading him
the hell would i do that for
Because the kind of art you are describing is incredibly dull, since it doesn't actually do any of the stuff you claim it does.
Based
Pseudiest take I've seen all week.
>Collingwoodposter again
Do elaborate, old chap.
>Collingwoodposter
I post about Collingwood all the time and I'm not that guy you're replying to.
Maybe you're just outnumbered by Collingwoodfriends.
>Art isnt there for society, society is there so art might be made.
This is completely backwards.
>This is putting the cart before the horse.
lol bourgeois pseuds get out.
He's shit, and there's only one collingwood poster.
redditfags need to go back.
Yet both of you rdtpost.
Collingwood is basically just High Modernism, but elucidated. If you think he's shit, then are you implying the movement in the arts which is generally avoided for its difficulty, and not for its actual lack of quality, is, also?
the effect on readers of poetry, with its opposite poles of ecstasy and melancholia, is "what the french call a 'frisson', and the scots call a 'grue'" - meaning the shudder provoked by fearful or supernatural experiences. beyond historic interest, what does your description of art make but a dead bore to all but specialists?
Every artist should strive to become an expert.
Impossibly stupid comment.
Read a history of modern poetry. You don't know what you are talking about.
there's no word sadder than expert. amateur comes from the word amator (lover), we must do things for love, otherwise we're fools. and mister thomas hardy wrote ‘a lover without indiscretion is no lover at all’.
Maybe I don't believe in love.
those are harsh words, sir
It’s the other way around. The Iliad seems to be a standard tale, from when ancient Achaeans raided Anatolian coastal cities, he may have likely put a finishing flourish on. The Odyssey is what appears to be his.
>Unanimated gif
Rae, you’re the OP of this thread, aren’t you?
So if I read a book of modern poetry I will like Collingwood?
the iliad's not a standard tale, aristotle in his poetics actually says most epics tell the story of one person or one war from start to finish & the iliad is the exception that doesn't. and it starts after the start of the war and ends before the end. that's the joke among all classical scholars. the iliad being called the iliad is a nonsense, because it's not about ilion.
and the odyssey, it's fine and vivid, but never huge or terrible. the author misses his (her, more likely) every chance of greatness.
that's a very good movie
You know if a biography of Eustache exists in the English language? I don't think it does.
Not convinced. I have This book. What’d you think of it?
What movie is it?
Mes Petites Amoureuses - Jean Eustache
did you read it? i thought it was fantastic. if you're really interested (you're not) samuel butler wrote a book about it as well, the authoress of the odyssey, it's mentioned in the foreword of homer's daughter. butler was the source of much of robert's ingenuity at knocking highly-respected names and notions off their perches.
have sex
Society without art is worthless, art only needs a beholder to have worth
base havesexposter
Why did he anhero?
Something we could find out if an English biography existed.
Based SCHIZO-POSTER
I've seen that movie. Pretty good. Not as good as La maman et la putain, though.
Where is this from
it’s from r graves book of his oxford lectures
eliot who said 'the only kind of art worth talking about is the art one happens to like.'