Random Thoughts Thread

[Mujaya]

beauty is in the beat of a human heart. if you haven't captured that, you haven't captured anything- nor shall you ever.

That has to be of the most mediocre things I've ever heard. Sure the intricacies of biology are so profound they're like intelligent design, but I know that's not what you meant by that. You think that there is beauty in everything, and that standards should not be held to beauty. That's subjectivism and it makes the world ugly, because there are ugly people with ugly standards and ugly motives. You probably also think that people are intrinsically good and that morality is predicated upon instinct. People who think like that are probably why whoever the guy is who would have been the next Da Vinci spent his life beating off and shooting heroin. I don't dislike your optimism. I love optimism. What I dislike is naivety. it's an excuse for people to trample all over great things.

There's no inherent ugliness in "you sure as hell could do better than that".

[Megas]

That has to be of the most mediocre things I've ever heard. Sure the intricacies of biology are so profound they're like intelligent design, but I know that's not what you meant by that. You think that there is beauty in everything, and that standards should not be held to beauty. That's subjectivism and it makes the world ugly, because there are ugly people with ugly standards and ugly motives. You probably also think that people are intrinsically good and that morality is predicated upon instinct. People who think like that are probably why whoever the guy is who would have been the next Da Vinci spent his life beating off and shooting heroin. I don't dislike your optimism. I love optimism. What I dislike is naivety. it's an excuse for people to trample all over great things.

There's no inherent ugliness in "you sure as hell could do better than that".

This uh, is a lot of words that don't actually make a point?

Are you some kind of more ineffective version of that villain dood from Pokemon x and y?

That's just the vibe I'm getting.

Like, if you just want to say 'ur a pleb' you should probably just write that....

[Mujaya]

...I genuinely cannot tell if you are a parody account.

Like, by its very definition beauty is subjective. The qualities of what is considered beautiful change across eras, civilizations, cultures etc.

All that is beautiful is qualitative, and things that lack quality are not beautiful because they are not intricate or well constructed.

Heres the definition: the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit.

In other words, all beauty is that which satisfies the aesthetic sense, and everything is held to a qualitative standard because there are things which a majority of people find beautiful, and there are things which a minority of people find beautiful. But you wouldn't say that these things are beautiful because people think they're beautiful. There are people who find totalitariaist propaganda beautiful. Does that mean that they are beautiful?
Beauty is partly derived from the Latin word "bellus" which means

1. nice, fine, excellent

Not everything is nice, or fine, nor excellent.

[Snow]

I am very well versed in art. Like i've said before, I come from a family of artists, so my aesthetic sense is far from unrefined. I know about minimalism and neo-expressionism, and impressionism and abstract expressionism and brutalism and post-modernism and all of that other shit. I'm saying it's bad. Brutalism in architecture was a shit show, and I know you know this because you're an architect. Abstract expressionism and minimalism are both garbage. I like neo-expressionism because of Basquiat. Banksy is a moron, as are many of the other anarchist social critics. I frequent art museums and I've studied the histories and some of the practices of painting, music, literature and poetry extensively. Some of my favorite artists include James Turrell, Yayoi Kusama, and Robert Irwin.

They do not encompass art as a whole, however. Art as a whole has been lacking since about the 1960's when Andy Warhol decided that he thought he could "mass produce" art. Either that or it was when James Pollock swindled people into thinking that he had talent.

Few questions. Are you aware there are probably as many definitions of art as there are art critics and theorists, and there are at least a couple that are taken into consideration by academic circles, sometimes at the same time even though they can be contradictory? This is because 'art', a mode of human expression, is heavily context-dependent. This context is historical, social, cultural, geographic, political. It is good that we can all say our piece on things we see and experience, but doing so without the neccessary tools means that what you're saying can't not be subjective. For any claim on objectivity you have to immerse yourself in the context, and a person finds, as I personally have found, that doing so opens up your mind, allows you to appreciate in different ways things you never appreciated before, and even to peer into the complex connection between art and the human heart. Getting a glimpse of the heart of someone who has lived centuries before you, their thoughts, their fears, their desires, what drove them. There are few things in life and learning as rewarding as this experience.

Also, what do you think brutalism is, exactly? What does the name mean, how did the definition come into being and what does it describe? I regret to inform you that 'brutalism', in the context you're using it in, is a shorthand. It's a buzzword, aesthetic junkfood par excellence. It is useful only when all parties involved know it for what it is. Using it to seriously discuss architecture is the equivalent of defining something as 'bathroomtileism' or 'shingleroofism'.

Context, context, context....

[Gl❀w]

Not everything is nice, or fine, nor excellent.

you, for example

[Megas]

Err, like, I don't actually know if engaging with this is to any benefit but like, did you read FSN?

Do you think what gives Kotomine Kirei pleasure is the same as what gives Emiya Shirou pleasure?

Do you believe they see beauty in all the same things?

[Kotonoha]

Err, like, I don't actually know if engaging with this is to any benefit but like, did you read FSN?

Do you think what gives Kotomine Kirei pleasure is the same as what gives Emiya Shirou pleasure?

Do you believe they see beauty in all the same things?

I mean... yes?

[Megas]

I mean... yes?

...I'm relatively sure the overlap isn't 100%

Like, relatively sure Shirou doesn't get off to orphan batteries

[Snow]

All shed and no play makes Emiya Shirou a dull boy

[Kotonoha]

...I'm relatively sure the overlap isn't 100%

Like, relatively sure Shirou doesn't get off to orphan batteries

Neither does Kotomine but they make him feel alive, same for Shirou whose sense of purpose relies on other people to suffer/need saving

[just Beamu]

Sometimes you gotta kidnap a few orphans

[Megas]

Okay, poor example then.

Let's say Ryunosuke and Shirou then

[Snow]

They both still derive meaning from human suffering.

Hence human suffering is beautiful.

I agree.

[Megas]

They both still derive meaning from human suffering.

Hence human suffering is beautiful.

I agree.

....ya I this is why engaging with topics in general is a mistake.

I should just never say anything and suffer in silence. Thus I will become beautiful

[Snow]

I am having a kidding friend. I know my art but humans to me are a mystery...

[Mujaya]

Few questions. Are you aware there are probably as many definitions of art as there are art critics and theorists, and there are at least a couple that are taken into consideration by academic circles, sometimes at the same time even though they can be contradictory?
This is because 'art', a mode of human expression, is heavily context-dependent. This context is historical, social, cultural, geographic, political. It is good that we can all say our piece on things we see and experience, but doing so without the neccessary tools means that what you're saying can't not be subjective.

That it is subjective is an inevitability. What is foolish is the attempt to make things entirely subjective to the degree that they are not held to standards. To say that something bears no objective characteristics is to say that it doesn't have a point. And that's the absurdity of your claim. There are objectives to art.
1. To be a successful artist
2. To express art successfully
3. To produce successful art.
And many beyond that. It's not obvious to me that art exists solely for human expression.
What is poor about modern art is that it's bad and bears either no meaning, or that meaning which is vile. A majority of fine art nowadays is predicated upon the examination of a social context and the goal of many artists is to perpetuate pejorative views and demean artistic standards for the sake of artistic rebelliousness. I am aware that artists bear a great propensity to be left-leaning, and that's fine and dandy because anybody who knows anything about personality psychology knows that artists tend to be high in openness to experience, which is a left-leaning trait.

For any claim on objectivity you have to immerse yourself in the context, and a person finds, as I personally have found, that doing so opens up your mind, allows you to appreciate in different ways things you never appreciated before, and even to peer into the complex connection between art and the human heart. Getting a glimpse of the heart of someone who has lived centuries before you, their thoughts, their fears, their desires, what drove them. There are few things in life and learning as rewarding as this experience.

I have immersed myself in the context. I have immersed myself in many different contexts and derived a multitude of perspectives from those experiences. I was a communist, very much like you are, and I was retarded. What art in modern times speaks to me is either an illness or neurosis. These people who cast away good things like values and standards in spite have hearts filled with tumors and bad cholesterol. There's nothing bad about examining someone or something. What is poor is viewing a pathology as a virtue.

Also, what do you think brutalism is, exactly? What does the name mean, how did the definition come into being and what does it describe? I regret to inform you that 'brutalism', in the context you're using it in, is a shorthand. It's a buzzword, aesthetic junkfood par excellence. It is useful only when all parties involved know it for what it is. Using it to seriously discuss architecture is the equivalent of defining something as 'bathroomtileism' or 'shingleroofism'.

Context, context, context....

Brutalism was an appalling artistic movement. The goal of architecture as art is to breathe life into a landscape. There's nothing beautiful about haplessly designing a concrete prison and making your tenants feel one year closer to 1984.

[Bird of Hermes]

*Scathach and Medb porn written prior to localization, excuse.

Ahhh, you remember that...

[Mujaya]

you, for example

Implying that it is my goal to be nice. "True" and "nice" are not synonymous, honey.

[Megas]

That it is subjective is an inevitability. What is foolish is the attempt to make things entirely subjective to the degree that they are not held to standards. To say that something bears no objective characteristics is to say that it doesn't have a point. And that's the absurdity of your claim. There are objectives to art.
1. To be a successful artist
2. To express art successfully
3. To produce successful art.
And many beyond that. It's not obvious to me that art exists solely for human expression.
What is poor about modern art is that it's bad and bears either no meaning, or that meaning which is vile. A majority of fine art nowadays is predicated upon the examination of a social context and the goal of many artists is to perpetuate pejorative views and demean artistic standards for the sake of artistic rebelliousness. I am aware that artists bear a great propensity to be left-leaning, and that's fine and dandy because anybody who knows anything about personality psychology knows that artists tend to be high in openness to experience, which is a left-leaning trait.



I have immersed myself in the context. I have immersed myself in many different contexts and derived a multitude of perspectives from those experiences. I was a communist, very much like you are, and I was retarded. What art in modern times speaks to me is either an illness or neurosis. These people who cast away good things like values and standards in spite have hearts filled with tumors and bad cholesterol. There's nothing bad about examining someone or something. What is poor is viewing a pathology as a virtue.


Brutalism was an appalling artistic movement. The goal of architecture as art is to breathe life into a landscape. There's nothing beautiful about haplessly designing a concrete prison and making your tenants feel one year closer to 1984.

[Zurvan]

Loads of fun

- - - Updated - - -

I cant believe I miss thirst posts