Is there any reason why hipster leftists almost exclusivly only care about postmodernist types of art?
for example if they like classical music they would pick maybe a John Cage over Bach
or Pollack over Raphael
or Derrida over reading Aristotle
or William S Burroughs over The Iliad
Not that I am in concern over post modernism, just confused as to why it is so treandy with the left
In my opinion, modern "art" is not Art. Modernists think everyone can be an artist. They think that all art is profound in some way, that we are "all" artists.
There is nothing more in the world I hate more than state subsidised art. I guess you could look at modern "art" as being a form of propaganda.
Jason:In my opinion, modern "art" is not Art. Modernists think everyone can be an artist. They think that all art is profound in some way, that we are "all" artists.
That is called egalitarianism.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:That is called egalitarianism.
Yes it is. But I cannot help but feel that egalitarianism and modern art are part of the same phiosophy. Art requires philosophy, otherwise there is no expression. If you have nothing to express, there is no art, just a mess.
I would rather read Burroughs than Iliad, too. Iliad is pretty boring.
And I'd be impressed if anyone could understand Derrida and also put on the air of the aloof hipster.
And art is subjective. It doesn't matter to me if people like whatever crap they like.
John Ess: I would rather read Burroughs than Iliad, too. Iliad is pretty boring. And I'd be impressed if anyone could understand Derrida and also put on the air of the aloof hipster. And art is subjective. It doesn't matter to me if people like whatever crap they like.
I'm not criticizing modern art (I do like some post modern composers and artists). Nor am I saying it is exclusive to lefty hipsters and upper west side yuppies, it just seems to be part of that culture and trendines, I was wondering if anyone knew why. But saying what is art or not, is not the point of my post. For the record the Iliad is my favorite book.
Doesn't matter to me either. Like I said, it is my opinnion. I just tend toward the theory that in a society that is so obedient toward the state, the preferences of those individuals must play a part in some way.
I work at walmart and so I tend to see what is trendy and what is not. Modern art is trendy I think because people are lazy. There minds are sloppy and modern art is very simple. It does not require alot of thought to get something out of it. Just walk into Ikea some time. They are a fine example of trendy modern art. Notice, that it is cheap too. Only the state and it's devotees love modern art and are willing to pay premium doh reh me for it. :)
Jason:I work at walmart and so I tend to see what is trendy and what is not. Modern art is trendy I think because people are lazy. There minds are sloppy and modern art is very simple. It does not require alot of thought to get something out of it. Just walk into Ikea some time. They are a fine example of trendy modern art. Notice, that it is cheap too. Only the state and it's devotees love modern art and are willing to pay premium doh reh me for it. :)
I don't see anything wrong with simplicity, in and of itself. In fact, for me, simplicity is essential to beauty. Aesthetics is agent-relative, though, so to each his own.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Jason: John Ess: I would rather read Burroughs than Iliad, too. Iliad is pretty boring. And I'd be impressed if anyone could understand Derrida and also put on the air of the aloof hipster. And art is subjective. It doesn't matter to me if people like whatever crap they like. Doesn't matter to me either. Like I said, it is my opinnion. I just tend toward the theory that in a society that is so obedient toward the state, the preferences of those individuals must play a part in some way. I work at walmart and so I tend to see what is trendy and what is not. Modern art is trendy I think because people are lazy. There minds are sloppy and modern art is very simple. It does not require alot of thought to get something out of it. Just walk into Ikea some time. They are a fine example of trendy modern art. Notice, that it is cheap too. Only the state and it's devotees love modern art and are willing to pay premium doh reh me for it. :)
A lot of it has to do with the fact that every period has its "vulgar tastes" and the people considered vulgar for having them. And in every period, that vulgarity includes the majority of people. Today's society perhaps takes art and having access to it for granted. Maybe it's that time is not so scarce as to limit the number of people who create art. And that money is not so scarce that people can't pay for all of it.
well id ont actually agree with u on this. im a digital artist and dont know anything abt traditional art but still im really inspired and love it definately wan t to try it. art is art man!!
Ayaz Malik
Blasting Art Inc. Online Art Community
Art is defined by the subjective perceptions of the individual.
I may not consider post-modern forms of art to be interesting/stimulating/beautiful, but that does not mean they aren't. Nor does it mean they are any of those things if they are considered to be so by a "leftist".
Like wombatron said, beauty is agent-relative.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
exactly
These are often the same people that walk around looking like an absolute mess, does it surprise you that the art like they is disgusting once you've seen what they do to their own bodies?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Who cares about people's taste in art? What does that have to do with philosophy, economics and politics? Some here are starting to sound like Ayn Rand, with the claim that only romantic realism is "true art" (I also once saw a video in which Mr. Cropper, one of the prominent and more absurd youtube Objectivists, claimed that "true poetry must ryhme" - you've just written Shakespear off, Mr. Cropper!). Of course, the very idea of objective aesthetics is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard of in my life. Aesthetics is the most obviously subjective thing. And while I'm not a fan of the more absurd stuff like a canvas with a dot on it, I can appriciate some of the more surrealist and impressionist forms of art. I don't see why art has to be a direct "representation of reality" at all. I find romantic realism boring. *yawn*
Now, postmodern philosophy, that is just the new form of sophism in my view. I don't even think Derrida understood himself. The whole thing is more or less just a language game concocted by academics as a way to push nihilism and make money off of it somehow. What I find most disgusting about it, though, is that it involves the idea that philosophy is basically dead and we've faced "the end of history", there can be no more real progress in ideas. In this way, it undermines the integrity and progress of ideas. Azrienoch (one of the most popular post-modernists on youtube) even told me straight up that he thinks all that's left is sophistry, and he sees no problem with that. I know first-hand how ridiculous it is, I've gone in circles in debates with these guys for a year now. They just spin their wheels.
Brainpolice: Who cares about people's taste in art? What does that have to do with philosophy, economics and politics? Some here are starting to sound like Ayn Rand, with the claim that only romantic realism is "true art" (I also once saw a video in which Mr. Cropper claimed that "true poetry must ryhme" - you've just written Shakespear off, Mr. Croppper!).
Who cares about people's taste in art? What does that have to do with philosophy, economics and politics? Some here are starting to sound like Ayn Rand, with the claim that only romantic realism is "true art" (I also once saw a video in which Mr. Cropper claimed that "true poetry must ryhme" - you've just written Shakespear off, Mr. Croppper!).
And....? Nitpicks aside, where is the harm in the current discussion, which began with a fairly benign observation of a perceived trend of post-modern art associated with the left? Once again, someone doesn't agree something, and a cry analogous to throwing out the baby with the bathwater is heard. Maybe a thread for a discussion on the perceived trend of certain art with the right, beginning with Hitler's desire to become an architect / artist, is in order to balance things out?
Brainpolice:Of course, the very idea of objective aesthetics is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard of in my life. Aesthetics is the most obviously subjective thing.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
It seems to me that you are the nitpicker here, whenever I make a post that doesn't agree with someone. That seems to be your new trend. Sort of like you're trying to understandably be a voice of moderation, when I think sometimes you simply have to take a stand. You can't be neutral about everything.
The point is, what does this thread have to do with any of the basic topics here? And why try to disingenously indirectly connect it to "the left"? I tire of these purely aesthetically based complaints about "the left" that have nothing to do with serious philosophy, and are revolved almost entirely around someone's personal taste.
I'm not sure I've read anything that said otherwise, aside from individuals with different perspectives who have not explicitly said they are for or against "objective aesthetics".
I'm sure that you are aware of Rand's philosophy of objective aesthetics, which seems to be mirrored by a few above posts.
Although, the moment anyone quotes The Fountainhead in walls of text in an attempt to prove otherwise, I'll be the first at the lifeboats
Same.
Brainpolice: It seems to me that you are the nitpicker here, whenever I make a post that doesn't agree with someone. That seems to be your new trend. Sort of like you're trying to understandably be a voice of moderation, when I think sometimes you simply have to take a stand. You can't be neutral about everything.
One true art to rule them all, and in aesthetics bind them.
Knight_of_BAAWA: One true art to rule them all, and in aesthetics bind them.
Haha!
Nitroadict: Brainpolice: It seems to me that you are the nitpicker here, whenever I make a post that doesn't agree with someone. That seems to be your new trend. Sort of like you're trying to understandably be a voice of moderation, when I think sometimes you simply have to take a stand. You can't be neutral about everything. I wasn't aware that I was neutral on everything. I guess I should stop learning & start arguing instead (I kid, I kid), but I suppose one does need to strike a healthy balance. I have no real problem with your post, it's just I just don't see the point in putting too much stock into benign comments such as whether someone thinks the left has a terrible taste in art & then extrapolate it into an argument about objective aesthetics, when no one in the first place wrote anything like "I believe objective aesthetics are necessary...", "The Left does not have an objective sense in aesthetics, etc." The extrapoltion is interesting, no doubt, but feels like a larger tangent on whether or not there is a correlation between post-modern art & The Left (or whoever for that matter). The only thing I've read so far is a more or less intelligent conversation regarding subjective tastes in the area of art, not whether there is one true art to rule them all :\
I didn't mean to offend you or start a meta-debate, I just have recently gotten this feeling that you were going a bit too far out of your way to be neutral. But I apologize if I came off as hostile. What I particularly dislike is the use of "the left" as a buzzword.
I think my whole point has been lost. THIS IS NOT ABOUT TASTE, but trends. It was never to debate the merit of Pollack over Raphael, just a trend I happened to come across and notice with a lot of people who are left wingers. Like I said before I have no problem with post modern art, but that is missing the entire point. Is there a fundamental reason this trend exists, is what I was curious of. THere is no need to describe personal tastes, if that was the case I would have asked people what they thought of post modern art/ philosophy. I am sorry if my words had not been clear enough
The title of the thread should have been POSTMODERNISM AND THE FASHIONABLE LEFT (hence why philosophy is on my list of examples), that was my mistake.
It has been altered.
Sorry to triple post. I think that postmodernism can be safely stereotypically associated with the left. They seem to over represent it. Just as blacks over represent the NBA, white males over represent CEO's or whatever. I do beleive when an aesthetic has trends to certain groups it is important to find out why. To me it is along the same lines as a naive person asking "why do libertarians buy more gold and guns than non libertarians? " If he knew nothing about libertarians but saw that trend, it may mean something. Not that gold and guns are exclusivly libertarian. If this was a site for Jocks who wanted to beat up nerds and give them wedgies I think it would be appropriate to ask "why do nerds like dungeons and dragons."
Yes you could ask the same question of art and the right too, that is just as valuable. And as far as Ayn Rand is concerned ,I have a very short list of fiction books I have read and Ayn Rand novels are not on it.
well if you want a leftist answer, one can point to marxist philosophers who collerate taste and art with class position and consumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu
i recommend naked lunch by Burroughs to one and all.
have not read the illiad.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:Has anybody seen this ? http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
That about sums it up. I think in a way Sokal showed what a fraud it all was with the whole "science wars", yet it continues to thrive. By the way this, I thought this thread was long dead. Perhaps it is a zombie now.
Dondoolee: I think my whole point has been lost. THIS IS NOT ABOUT TASTE, but trends. It was never to debate the merit of Pollack over Raphael, just a trend I happened to come across and notice with a lot of people who are left wingers. Like I said before I have no problem with post modern art, but that is missing the entire point. Is there a fundamental reason this trend exists, is what I was curious of. THere is no need to describe personal tastes, if that was the case I would have asked people what they thought of post modern art/ philosophy. I am sorry if my words had not been clear enough
To answer your question, I think post-modern art is popular with leftists because of it's view of a lack of structure to the world. Post-modernism basically teaches that there is no order to the world, so the same belief that justifies the abstract art also justifies the left's interventions due to the post-modern belief in a lack of structure or order to anything. Since the left buys into this stuff, it justifies the state in "creating order" that they believe would not exist naturally.
I hope that helps clear things up.
Where I come from, the women don't glow, but the men definitely plunder.
revolutionist: Dondoolee: I think my whole point has been lost. THIS IS NOT ABOUT TASTE, but trends. It was never to debate the merit of Pollack over Raphael, just a trend I happened to come across and notice with a lot of people who are left wingers. Like I said before I have no problem with post modern art, but that is missing the entire point. Is there a fundamental reason this trend exists, is what I was curious of. THere is no need to describe personal tastes, if that was the case I would have asked people what they thought of post modern art/ philosophy. I am sorry if my words had not been clear enough To answer your question, I think post-modern art is popular with leftists because of it's view of a lack of structure to the world. Post-modernism basically teaches that there is no order to the world, so the same belief that justifies the abstract art also justifies the left's interventions due to the post-modern belief in a lack of structure or order to anything. Since the left buys into this stuff, it justifies the state in "creating order" that they believe would not exist naturally. I hope that helps clear things up.
But the lack of order and all, shouldn't that make them free marketers then, or at least see the post modernism in that?
in all seriousness, Jackson Pollack was an artist. Those splatter paintings might look ridiculous, but it really does take talent and artistry. rofl, idk but i see his paintings, and honestly think that it has a flair of uniqueness, and is not something anyone can do.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
This is an interesting thread, considering that some really wacky creatives happen to be or were libertarians. Take Dennis Leary, who said he wants to be free to run around naked covered with green jello or the stuff that Penn and Teller do.
Jason: In my opinion, modern "art" is not Art. Modernists think everyone can be an artist. They think that all art is profound in some way, that we are "all" artists. There is nothing more in the world I hate more than state subsidised art. I guess you could look at modern "art" as being a form of propaganda.
I personally think that anyone CAN be an artist, provided that they are willing to be serious enough about it.
*boinks the loony left* Back to the factory!
*boinks the loony left* Back to Russia!
*boinks the loony left* Back to Africa!
Huh?
Ah! There had been a sad lack of boinking as of late, until now.
wombatron: Ah! There had been a sad lack of boinking as of late, until now.
I don't come here too often. What do you mean by that?
Thedesolateone: Art is defined by the subjective perceptions of the individual.
The word "art" also has an objective definition, which includes technical proficiency.
There are things which pass for "art" which qualify themselves as such by the very absence of technical proficiency in their creation. Saying that is art is like saying a corpse is human life by virtue of the fact that it is dead.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I've always thought that Andy Warhol had a respect for capitalism. Haha.
"Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art."
Dondoolee: revolutionist: Dondoolee: I think my whole point has been lost. THIS IS NOT ABOUT TASTE, but trends. It was never to debate the merit of Pollack over Raphael, just a trend I happened to come across and notice with a lot of people who are left wingers. Like I said before I have no problem with post modern art, but that is missing the entire point. Is there a fundamental reason this trend exists, is what I was curious of. THere is no need to describe personal tastes, if that was the case I would have asked people what they thought of post modern art/ philosophy. I am sorry if my words had not been clear enough To answer your question, I think post-modern art is popular with leftists because of it's view of a lack of structure to the world. Post-modernism basically teaches that there is no order to the world, so the same belief that justifies the abstract art also justifies the left's interventions due to the post-modern belief in a lack of structure or order to anything. Since the left buys into this stuff, it justifies the state in "creating order" that they believe would not exist naturally. I hope that helps clear things up. But the lack of order and all, shouldn't that make them free marketers then, or at least see the post modernism in that?
Not at all. If you don't believe in spontaneous order, (the fact that human beings naturally cooperate without direction) then you don't believe in any natural market forces; therefore, you believe that there needs to be human leadership directing the way society goes.
The belief in the free market entails that there is a natural order to the world because humans naturally cooperate in the marketplace without leaders in the ivory tower.
If someone believes that there is no natural order, they cannot possibly believe in the free market with any sort of coherent thought. The belief in markets requires the belief of a natural order as a prerequisite. If you believe that the world is just chaos, you are bound to believe that leaders are needed to direct human beings or humans will not cooperate.
This is kind of like the Nietzsche 'Overman' bad boy mentality. That society must progress through overmen who distance themselves from 'the herd' by creating 'never seen before' art masterpieces. Art like many things is a subjective interaction. I think Pollock has an interesting technique yet so does Picasso. If people wish to label Pollock 'not an artist' then I care not for why does art need to be objective?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael