Is Mozart anti-revolutionary?

Feel free to provide evidence

Your post :^)

:^)/10

OBJECTIVELY shit taste?

Mozart was part of the Bavarian Illuminati which was headed by Adam Weishupt who was somewhat of a proto-communist. So that would probably be a no.

Indeed, my dude

...

I agree with you. It is subjective, but you do have to assume standards to discuss it. It is a true statement, but it's used to just stop any criticism.

You're really horrible at being a nihilist.

You have a really horrible understanding of nihilism.

Explain to me how objectivity in art is compatible with nihilism.

Like saying there is no objective meaning to life?

Well if people have shit taste doesn't that mean that art IS subjective ?

Rekt

Well, for example: Art is political, and it the political aim of nihilism is to destroy all ruling class values and narratives. Obviously this extends to the realm of art and the destruction of bourgeois culture - for example, postmodern art (the cultural logic of late capitalism). Dadaism and the creation of avant-garde art are examples of this.

Keep in mind, not all aesthetics is about >DURR WHAT IS BEAUTY

Whoa bro you just, like, totally changed my worldview.

Start with the Greeks.

How can art ever not be subjective? Everyone is different and everyone views a given work of art differently depending on their own experiences.

It's almost like not everyone is a special star in the sky with a priori valid opinions, right?

Tbh if you weren't a stubborn retard you wouldn't have your opinions in the first place.

Give me an example of something that is objectively "good" in art.

Is this like the "atheism has political goals" meme?

Are you claiming you are?

hm
psychomedia.it/jep/number24/zizek.htm

Was he an Austrian/Austro-Bavarian/Bavarian, or…. German?

Maybe even Black, eh?

Same to you my dude.

Listen, I don't know if you just don't know how philosophy works, but y'know, like, people make arguments defending their position and, like, other people attempt to refute them.

The whole "art is subjective" thing denies any possibility of any discussion being had whatsoever over art, because it ends any potential conversation about aesthetics with "BUT THAT'S SUBJECTIVE BRO". So, you could take a Kantian position for instance that art is the form of purposiveness without a purpose that universally in all conscious beings creates a free play of disinterested pleasure between the work of art and the observer, and the subjectivist will just reply with >THAT'S SUBJECTIVE THO!

You may have missed the trajectory of this conversation, but I'm not interested in arguing my views on aesthetics. I'm just making what SHOULD be the pretty easily-digestible notion (for people who aren't idiots at least, so there was my fatal assumption) that subjectivism is a fucking worthless, babby-tier position on aesthetics that literally no one who has written on aesthetics has ever taken seriously.

Read .pdf related.

Of course :^)

meaning, what aesthetics I personally subscribe to

...

No but he isn't fucking relevant

If Wolfy is counter-revolutionary, then I might as well start reading Evola now.

Appeal to consequences. That does not mean it's false.

What "worth"? Are you projecting value onto things again?

What's worth varies on context and time.

"worth" itself is subjective

Pretty sure most philosophers will use examples or metaphors to demonstrate their point and not just rely on fedora level reasoning. "sigh, I once again must educate the denizens of the chans why subjectivity is bassless assertion. Maybe if I post MUH AESTHETICS several times then they'll get the idea"

Hm, it's almost like part of this conversation that you so righteously jumped into was about the political nature of art. Consequences do matter to me, regardless of how "true" or "false" they are. I am a nihilist, after all ;^)

No m8, I seek to destroy bourgeois values and culture (like yours, for instance) and replace them with my own.

Oyy lmao nihilism is positivism.

Mozart's Don Juan is the best opera in history go fucking kill yourself.

read the .pdf

Not an argument.

That IS a value faggit.

No, it's wrong because you're not backing up any of your fucking assertions.

Sarcasm is not a response. Do you claim to know objective aesthetics or do you believe they exist but claim to not know what they are?

That is from the pdf dumbass.

Subjectivists need to go to the gulag. There are literary techniques like stream of consciousness which are advanced in literature, you wouldn't say that craftmanship is subjective would you?

Yes? Which is why De Stihl is not a gothic cathedral?

The gothic cathedral is associated with certain crafting techniques that are associated with "gothic". That's it.

Do you consider one to have better "craftsmanship" than the other?

I define works with advanced techniques of craftmanship to be better.

So harder things == better.

No. Read Hegel's lectures on aesthetics. It's not a simple matter of "Harder". It's about representation and harmony. It's about skill.

In aesthetics, the judgement of the majority can be valid.

Meaningless platitudes.

So the most popular things are the best?

But it is. All art is a form of communication between the artist and the viewer, and how the viewer interprets it depends entirely on their state of mind, knowledge, mood, age, etc.

Let's take the example of a parent watching a children's movie with their child; say, the Hunchback of Notre Dame (great movie). The child sees it as a fun, simple movie with some very scary moments (and a frightening villain). But the adult sees it very differently, because he sees the subtext in the movie which you only really notice if you have a bit of life experience and some knowledge of the books. Both enjoy the movie and get something out of it, even though they interpret it very differently.

So you have two people watching the same movie and interpreting it in two wildly different ways. Is anyone wrong in the way they interpreted it? Is the child wrong because he didn't get the full picture, or did he somehow get a purer experience than the adult, since his own experiences didn't get in the way?

Hint: None of them are wrong, art is subjective

That's simply retarded

m8, what kind of statement even is this?

I am familiar with Kantian and Heideggerian aesthetics if you're asking whether I can conceptualize of how art is objective. I mentioned before that I'm not really interested in arguing for whatever view I subscribe to, because that's not really the point I was making.

Then read the whole thing, and then read this. The reason I posted it is because nihilism has a political history. I myself and most anarcho-nihilists don't completely follow the ideas of the Russian Nihilists, but they and their actions have been a source of inspiration.

You're not wrong, but the issue is more over whether there is "good" and "bad" art or whether all art is equally valid.

I'm asking whether you believe objectivity of art exists independently of your knowledge of it.

Cash out this statement pls

When you say, "objectivity of art", do you mean whether or not there is objectively good and bad art?

When you say, "independently of your knowledge of it", do you mean that art can be "good" or "bad" despite my subjective judgment of it?

And what if one person likes a piece of art and another one hates it? Who is right?

Now, if you interviewed everyone who viewed that piece of art and they all thought it was shit, then you might start saying that it was objectively shit.

There's literally a blank canvas in the museum of modern art , and some people believe it's art and magnificent others believe it's retarded , you can't dictate what someone sees as good or bad , it's either you see at as good or you see it as bad , literally everything not art alone changes from each person's perspective, art is equally valid

I dunno m8, you tell me. You're the one vaguely rejecting subjectivism without offering a coherent replacement.

Sure. I guess I'm asking, if you don't know what the objective goodness is, then how do you know it exists?

But you can't. You can only say everyone who viewed it hated it. The gap between shared values and objective values is at least as big as the gap between personal values and shared values. Every living creature in the universe could value X and X would come no closer to being INHERENTLY, OBJECTIVELY valuable.

...

True. I stand corrected, then.

link to the pages.

Protagoras was renowned as a teacher of rhetoric and politics throughout Greece by the time of his death in 415. His most famous doctrine, that "man is the measure of all things," indicates that his views involved an early form of moral relativism. This is also a possible interpretation of his analysis of the concept of good (334a-c), where he asserts that a thing is good only in so far as it is good for something. Socrates's summary of his own position—that "all things are knowledge—justice, temperance, and courage" (361b)—closely follows the Greek syntax of Protagoras's famous doctrine, and must be understood as directly contending with it.

marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

bernie

And have you figured out a way to demonstrate
A) why people enjoy them and
B) why people might have a different experience reading the technique?

If not once again we are forced to conclude that the value of art is subjective and how people experience art is subjective.

Using a technique does not equal better art. And if it did how do you figure out which literary technique is better or worse?

Lady Gaga better than Mozart confirmed

Dunno about Mozart but Beethoven was revolutionary both musically and politically for his time. He was also poor which was very rare for a composer.

Has Lady Gaga stood the test of hundreds of years?

pls stop using socratic irony on me I'm supposed to be the master ruseman here

as much as i hate unruhe he had a point shittalking nihilists

not really tho