Do you think art should have moral limits? I mean, any moral limit

Do you think art should have moral limits? I mean, any moral limit.

Attached: baudelaire.jpg (293x400, 12K)

Other urls found in this thread:

vermareport.com/2018/08/albert-camus-dandies-rebellion.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's naturally bordered by the limits of aesthetics which can only approach the limits of morals.

what a pleb take

Even the Supreme Court maintains a vague "I know it when I see it" when it comes to this. We should instead focus on having a culture that is intelligently flexible and capable of intuitive no-thank-you's

care to explain?

Rejecting the notion of the sublime marks you as a coward who has never seen the limit.

Should morality have artistic limits?

Attached: big brain.jpg (1420x946, 57K)

Kant and Schopenhauer on aesthetics especially the sublime as derived from Burke's concept.

baudelaire is such a fucking fraud

vermareport.com/2018/08/albert-camus-dandies-rebellion.html

Baudelaire is an urchin, a seether, you must embrace his work on this level. Put him in a museum and you will get scammed out of your francs.

No

Fuck morality
Fuck bourgeoise
Fuck capitalism
Fuck social hierarchy
Fuck religion
Fuck academist art

Attached: tristan.jpg (1000x1322, 102K)

And most of all, FUCK niggers and FUCK jannies.

Attached: 1537914109038.png (900x900, 101K)

Nah. I do think, however, that there is a certain red line when tackling morality and if an attempt at art crosses it, it looses its artfulness and becomes dross.

>Fuck all these things

Why? Is this just your renegade attitude or do you have something substantial to say?

What a moral question

10/10 based response

You can leave now faggot

Dadaist where the first hippies
>Many Dadaists believed that the 'reason' and 'logic' of bourgeois capitalist society had led people into war. They expressed their rejection of that ideology in artistic expression that appeared to reject logic and embrace chaos and irrationality. For example, George Grosz later recalled that his Dadaist art was intended as a protest "against this world of mutual destruction."

>I hate what you are doing and am going to do the exact opposite
hardly qualifies for a substantial response child

>Dadaist where the first hippies

Which means what?

>Which means what?
A rejection of war and violence in a sistem that generates it

I still can't figure out if you deem that good or bad.

Having imposed morals is for slaves, cowards, and bugmen.

Attached: friedrich-wilhelm-nietzsche-1873_a-G-1589139-4986398.jpg (366x488, 28K)

>and then user brings the faggot that sucked Wagner's cock and wrote an entire book claiming that german culture needed him to save itself
Brilliant move. faggot

Huh? I sense repressed homosexuality in your reply.

A retard view and a obviously failed grasp in differentiate technical and practical reason. Just read Habermas "theory and practice".

Evola explained Dadaism was literally a big inside joke, with some underlying sincerity. It was "clown world" shit.

>y-you're gay!
Brilliant move. faggot

...

Stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

i only know dadaists and early surrealists in painting and film and sculpture.

what are some essential early dadaist/surrealist writers? other than breton i guess. i liked his manifesto. i didn't care much for nadja.

Tzara's manifesto

if you film yourself raping a child and call it art house cinema, that's crossing the moral limit of art

An example is not an argument.

>should

Either it does or it doesn't already.

Your poor taste is embarrassing

At one point in my lifelong pursuit of true knowledge, the whole enterprise of existence transformed before my minds eye into a kind of aesthetic/artistic game. I don't know who said it, maybe Foucault, maybe Deleuze, but the world seemed to me like a theater play, in which we were merely the actors - choosing our path/our role based on unconscious aesthetic value judgements. War became the act of creating a beautiful object (peace/power) and so on.

calling something art house cinema doesn't make it art house cinema. art doesn't come from the 'creator' naming it so

not him, but i have to say that is a good example

>beauty
>art

pick one

google it

>philosophy is taste
A repressed faggot and a pleb. Your parents must be proud.

Should science? And scientific experiment?

You need not only the courage of your own convictions, you need an attack upon them.

all spooks

unlike morals, right?

What if the child films it?

hi zizek

No? What a dumb question.

The limit of art should be honesty, not morality.

Morality is fashion, and NORPs violate it when it's profitableVSrisk. So artists may violate when it is honestVSrisk.

Crf Serano having a Piss Christ but not a PissBUH.

When you create limits, you will automatically have people that will push that boundary.

First it must necessarily be clear what art is for you

>a fucking fraud
>wrote some of the best poetry in his century
You seem to be confused about the meaning of that word. he never claimed to be an efficient political militant or anything of the like. Dandyism is a purely esthetical stance, and by pissing off closeted utilitarianist like Camus it has actually fulfilled part of its stated purpose.

Eh, it was fun at least.