His incisive and unapologetic commentary is spot on, and only trannies and leftists/neo-liberals would disagree
>The true peculiarity of the Jew reveals itself best in his essentially irreligious nature. I cannot here enter on a discussion as to the idea of religion; but it is enough to say that it is associated essentially with an acceptance of the higher and eternal in man as different in kind, and in no sense to be derived from the phenomenal life. The Jew is eminently the unbeliever. Faith is that act of man by which he enters into relation with being, and religious faith is directed towards absolute, eternal being, the "life everlasting" of the religious phrase. The Jew is really nothing because he believes in nothing. >Belief is everything. It does not matter if a man does not believe in God; let him believe in atheism. But the Jew believes nothing; he does not believe his own belief; he doubts as to his own doubt. He is never absorbed by his own joy, or engrossed by his own sorrow. He never takes himself in earnest, and so never takes any one else in earnest. He is content to be a Jew, and accepts any disadvantages that come from the fact. .......... >Our age is not only the most Jewish but the most feminine. It is a time when art is content with daubs and seeks its inspiration in the sports of animals; the time of a superficial anarchy, with no feeling for Justice and the State; a time of communistic ethics, of the most foolish of historical views, the materialistic interpretation of history; a time of capitalism and of Marxism; a time when history, life, and science are no more than political economy and technical instruction; a time when genius is supposed to be a form of madness; a time with no great artists and no great philosophers; a time without originality and yet with the most foolish craving for originality; a time when the cult of the Virgin has been replaced by that of the Demi-vierge. It is the time when pairing has not only been approved but has been enjoined as a duty.
feels a bit unfair to compare a grand nicely photographed centerpiece to a temporary exhibit in a corner of St. Mary Axe, a building which actually does have some fairly impressive architecture (if you can get over it looking like a giant dildo, that is).
>feels a bit unfair to compare a grand nicely photographed centerpiece to a temporary exhibit Of course it's unfair. But OP's type of people (the RETVRNers) are consumed by the idea that old=good and new=bad.
Connor Lopez
Modern art started in France and is inherently French
I can't believe there was really a guy named Whynigger.
Jaxon Scott
This is basically a collection of Wagner's viewpoints nicely put together.
Luis Bell
Pictures like that piss me off. 1: that's cherry-picking 2: there's a difference between the artisan and artist 3: if you're equating complexity and difficulty with quality, then the prize goes to south-east Asia hands down, which is something that directly opposes the obnoxious Romanophila and Philhellenism prevalent in almost all of these shitty posts.
Angel Cruz
>then the prize goes to south-east Asia hands down, which is something that directly opposes the obnoxious Romanophila and Philhellenism prevalent in almost all of these shitty posts. ???
Josiah Wilson
Why are /Pol/ anons so easily persuaded by comparison images? I could find a depiction of a dirty little hut from 18th century Europe, then show it in comparison to a picture of the Guggenheim Bilbao or the Sydney Opera House, and say "oh wow look how shit their culture was back then".
Surely would have to have the IQ of a tree stump to fall for such a simple deception?
I don't think it looks "better", of course a traditional peasant cottage has certain charms that it doesn't have. But the Trevi fountain doesn't have those charms either. On the other hand, both the Trevi fountain and Guggenheim Bilbao show a level of cultural advancement that the peasant hut cottage doesn't.
Adrian Edwards
>Midwit makes false equivalence.
Many such cases.
Ethan King
What you mean is the difference between "aesthetically pleasing" and "impressive".
Sebastian Carter
which part is confusing you?
Logan Carter
Post examples of SEA complexity you bufoon
Evan Watson
>(the RETVRNers) are consumed by the idea that old=good and new=bad.
My problem with these people is they are too concerned with comparing architectural styles of individual buildings when what I think the real issue that has made so many cities hideous is terrible urban planning, which is something I guess more nebulous and difficult to provide easily disgusted concrete examples of in a meme format.
Juan Bell
Those terms are appropriate, although I wouldn't choose them in this discussion. I would prefer to use terms that are more directly relevant to its central subject, which seems to me to revolve around questions about cultural or societal advancement or sophisticated.
Colton Price
>cant use google, but still acts smug here's the first image result you uncultured dumbass
>It's bad and Jewish because... It just is ok? Your quote didn't mention a single specific thing the author takes issue with. "Modern art is just like daubs or something" isn't a good critique
Connor Cook
This is proof that adding on too much detail makes everything look tacky.
Dylan Cook
Not relevant to the point the user was making.
Carter Mitchell
> cultural or societal advancement or sophisticated. A building like the Hungarian parliament, and a towering modernist skyscraper, both show the society's advancement/sophistication, both are impressive - but they still evoke vastly different feelings in the observer.
To you. Maybe you should think about why you keep seeing sex toys in random objects.
Ayden Jones
Why are /pol/ morons so obsessed with Jews? Do you ever talk about anything else? Or is the Jew behind literally everything in your worldview? That building isn’t beautiful. It doesn’t stand for anything, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s just an empty shell, designed to look “sleek” and “modern”, but it projects no values. It can only be created by a civilisation which doesn’t believe in anything. No. Look at the Basilica De Sagrada Familia. It’s not an old building, in fact it’s still in construction, nor does it use an old style. Its style is utterly unique and innovative, and yet it is jaw-droppingly beautiful. The architects who made it believe in something, whereas modern society does not.
>Its style is utterly unique and innovative it's three different styles mashed together, what are you talking about? It looks like 3 different buildings.
Jackson Barnes
high culture design has always been about alienating the masses it used to use things that were extremely expensive to produce but with modern manufacturing techniques literally any lower middle class pleb could have a house that looks like a renaissance architectural masterpiece now high culture is intentionally bad so rich people can smugly pretend that they 'get it' and we don't, but the reason most people think they are ugly is on account of the fact they are, by our collective cultural aesthetic standards, ugly in reality if you like either you are being mentally cuckolded
Nah you’re confused. The modern art industry is simply money laundering and scams. They don’t even hide it. For example this “painting” sold for 14 million even though it’s literally telling you that you’re being scammed. Modern architecture is quite different. It’s just a functional way to build buildings. In a society that believes nothing, there’s no reason to create buildings that have meaning.
Not him, but Gaudi was famous for style that looks like he was tripping on shrooms. It can look nice, like something out of a fantasy book, but it takes some getting used to.
They always compare the average Modernist building to the few neoclassical ones which survived. Where are the neoclassical buildings that DID NOT survive? They're dust, and there are no photographs of them. Classic survivorship bias. There are many modernist buildings which are very beautiful and/or aesthetically interesting.
It’s true. 1) Get an unknown artist trying to become famous. 2) Buy his art for a few thousand. 3) Sell it to some other people who are in on the scam/your own shell companies for a decently high price. (Money laundering complete). 4) Pay journalists to report on the story, how the art sold for a high price, thus giving the artist fame. 5) More people will now be interested in buying his art. Wait a few years for the value of the art to inflate and sell it at an auction for ridiculously high prices to rich idiots who are the victims of this scam. You can even get a corrupt appraiser to value the art at many millions to inflate its price even more. 6) Easy profit. The artist is happy cause he’s rich. The mafia is happy because they launder their money and make huge profits. And the only victims are rich idiots who think that low-effort shit is “deep” and will pay millions for it. It’s probably the most lucrative and harmless scam ever conceived, although of course it is harmful to society because people stop caring about real art.
Eli Taylor
They do, but I'm not sure why that's relevant to the discussion.
Hunter Hernandez
>zoomer so used to meaningless art literally does not comprehent the concept of architecture that expresses meaning
Robert Ward
>makes smug, superior statement but doesn't actually answer the question nta but fuck off
Daniel Moore
Absolutely funpilled
Landon Carter
> those buildings have so much meaning... modern buildings have no meaning... >What "meaning" do you have in mind? >ummm.... you just don't get it you stupid zoomer!!
Saying kitsch makes you a pretentious faggot. STFU art is subjective and will continue to be regardless of your belief that you are better informed and have more sophisticated taste.
John Williams
What sense of meaning are you talking about, and how does the Guggenheim Bilbao not express said meaning? What about the meaning below is inferior to the meaning you have failed to describe?
>Gehry’s building was conceived as a formal prism for the city’s complex industrial past, a monument of sorts to the glory and decline of Bilbao as one of the world’s leading providers of steel
Austin Richardson
This whole thread is little more than, "I don't like it so it's bad."
Andrew Gray
Modernism is peak kitsch you absolute pleb.
You're basically saying architecture shouldn't be aesthetically pleasing, as if modern architecture has depth and meaning rather than pleasure, or that you can have profound architecture (e.g. Greek temple) that isn't aesthetically pleasing. Architecture isn't sculpture or painting, you're not meant to treat it as if you actually are thousands of metres higher than it and want to create something 'interesting' (of course such a desire only ever leads to boring art from unartists).
Most major architects today have virtually zero artistic skill and wouldn't know how to factor in the shadow of a particular decorative item in its social scape.
Jacob Johnson
This is the case with everything, surely, except your mum. I like her but she's bad and she knows it.
Robert Long
>it is jaw-droppingly beautiful To you. I think it looks repugnant and for no real reason (no meaning or real function behind its form).
Jacob Sullivan
Its meaning is rooted purely in the concepts of "technological progress", consumerism, and the liberal ideal of live and let live. It has no transcendental, higher meaning.
Jayden Harris
If you think modernism is kitsch, then I don't think you understand what "kitsch" means.
Joseph Bennett
This is true of any artistic architecture
Asher Wright
Duhhhhhhh.......... everyone i don't liike is jewish
The function is to glorify God and awe the spectator with its grandeur and beauty. It is not purely pragmatic like modernist architecture.
Thomas Thompson
Nor does the Trevi fountain. It's beautiful, but in the end it's an 18th representation of classical art. At that time, no one believed in anything "transcendental" that classical art represented. Much like the Guggenheim Bilbao, it was built to celebrate an era that had passed.
Thomas Collins
You've been brainwashed to distrust traditional beauty, so you think it's kitsch.
Whereas I know nothing is more of a deceit, and an historical failure, than modern architecture.
