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.
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.
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. 
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.
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!!
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.
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?
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.
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?
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’ve also seen the IMO phrase used at least once; the conversational ship isn’t sinking just yet, methinks.
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 [:|]
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 sure that you are aware of Rand’s philosophy of objective aesthetics, which seems to be mirrored by a few above posts.
Same.
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 :\
One true art to rule them all, and in aesthetics bind them.
Haha!
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.