Thread 18128601

Why do right-wingers and left-wingers have totally conflicting taste in art? What one political faction likes, the other thinks is putrid or lame. I've noticed that this conflict is over a century old and still raging today, extending to new mediums like video games, internet memes, animation, etc. For example, right-wingers think tumblr artstyles are ugly, and left-wingers find big-boobed anime girls repulsive

What is the history and fundamental reason why the beauty of art is interpreted differently based on politics?

It's just identity politics. This dichotomy with regards to art doesn't exist in the real world where people's taste is far more individualistic. Italian Futurism was literally co-opted by Right-Wing Fascist movements even though it's very much an impressionistic art genre for example, meanwhile, Communist regimes often banned Jazz for being too impressionist.

Art is propaganda or at least a reflection of it's underlying ideology. Abstract, modern art is at best propaganda for the postmodernist transvaluation of values (I don't know what terms they themselves use for this concept). So art can usually be associated with an ideology. Even when it is tearing down all norms or something gay like that, it is still an ideological position.

Additionally, it's a cope for the children of lawyers and those who have money. They can't compete in any field in which they can be measured against their parents/ peers, and have latched onto this mode in which their success is purely subjective.

>>18128886
>Abstract, modern art is at best propaganda for the postmodernist transvaluation of values (I don't know what terms they themselves use for this concept).
It's just Expressionism, not understanding what it is or the point of it doesn't make it propaganda, it's almost the opposite of propaganda because lacking concrete subject matter is partially the point. You can't propagandize something that has no concrete subject matter, that's just not what you're meant to get out of expressionist works.

>>18128601 (OP)
I like abstract art because it only has beauty and value to those within white western culture, as cultural proximity to the artist creates a shared abstract aesthetic. Right-wing hate for abstract art is fueled by the browning of the online right.

do liberals really enjoy stuff like this

stuff like this is worth millions

>>18130051
I enjoy it when it's seen in person.

>>18130051
You have to look at art like this in context because the point is to change how a room feels and fill otherwise empty space. Think of it like a challenge where the goal is to maximize color theory and form without resorting to concrete subject matter.

>>18130051
I understand it as they’d think whatever thought process went into the art also is part of the art itself. Like the guy that made your picrel (or some art analyst after he died) could’ve had an entire essay about why the paint was splotched in the particular places it was and liberals would consider that thought process also part of the art.

Conservatives wouldn’t really see this as making sense because the physical piece appears to them devoid of the thought that went into it. They see the painting and that’s it. They expect to derive substantial meaning from the painting but all they see is seemingly random splotches without rhyme or reason.

So the difference is the liberals have interpretations they use to derive meaning from things, while conservatives use the things themselves to arrive at interpretations. It’s an extrinsic vs intrinsic value seeking thing.

>>18130067
>I understand it as they’d think whatever thought process went into the art also is part of the art itself. Like the guy that made your picrel (or some art analyst after he died) could’ve had an entire essay about why the paint was splotched in the particular places it was and liberals would consider that thought process also part of the art.
kind of, understanding the process can help recontextualize a piece and help you find appreciation for it, but you don't even need to go that far, you're overthinking the point of expressionism. Again, the point is to change the feeling of a room and fill what would otherwise be empty space without resorting to concrete subject matter. You can change how a space feels through form and color theory. Think of it like the Bouba/Kiki effect, we associate rounder shapes with softness and more rigid shapes with roughness, I'm oversimplifying things a little bit but the point is that this isn't just random noise, there is a method to this madness for sure, it's just that the appreciation for this type of artwork is lost when looked at in a vacuum. I personally think this art does not belong in a museum, and I think most expressionist artists would agree with me. This art is meant for public spaces, where people aren't necesarilly going to sit in front of it and overanalyze it but will nevertheless be influenced by it in the background. That's why I think this type of artwork works best in waiting rooms, or hallways, or public artwork in subway stations, that kind of thing.

>>18130080
well said

>>18128601 (OP)
>and left-wingers find big-boobed anime girls repulsive
Brother I assure you that the average right wing 50 year old boomer also finds them abhorrent and weird

>>18130147
Hyper shit (overly massive boobs and asses) aren't actually meant for men, this type of porn is literally meant for other women, and insecure men gaslit themselves into thinking bimbos were sexy. I love big asses don't get me wrong but big asses made for men and big asses made for women are two different things

>>18128615
True it's clear this is not some kind of transhistorical truth. Does seem to be a very strong correlation today though especially if you don't count low IQ minorities who think like low IQ Trumpoids but vote left for gibs

>>18128601 (OP)
I'm right wing and I like abstract art because it objectifies women. Look at this abstractooba

>>18128615
>meanwhile, Communist regimes often banned Jazz for being too impressionist.
Yes and Mussolini liked jazz
https://www.newyorkalmanack.com/2022/05/jazz-mussolini-and-italian-fascism/

>>18128601 (OP)
I like what I like, I do not let politics blind me in that way.

>>18130185
>I like what I like, I do not let politics blind me in that way.
Nietzschean will to power move. I like it = it rocks

>>18128601 (OP)
Leftism is rooted in abstract ideas, mere mental spooks, like their ideal world. Hence they love abstract art, as it represent stuff that simply dont and cannot exist in the real world they hate so much.
Rightism is rooted in the value and rules of the concrete, real world. So they prefere realistic art that portray the beauty the real world can gift

Left: art is expression

Right: art is beauty

liberals value both modern and traditional art and work meticulously to preserve the art of our ancestors, as well as to showcase the forefront of the artistic
medium
the contemporary right is only able to create ever increasingly grotesque repulsive works, in an attempt to use them as some sort of argument

>>18130051
people like Pollock and Warhol were part of a CIA psyop on the American people

not a schizo theory, it's documented, look it up

>>18130393
Libtards:
>CIA le bad because it fought communism
Chuds:
>CIA le bad because it funded abstract art
Does anybody actually like the CIA?

>>18130374
Come on, the right are literally entirely metaphysical in everything, they literally reject even the most rudamentary examinations of structure or structural thinking. The right literally believe in metaphysics and that pedo elites are elites because of divine mandate.
Meanwhile traditionally the far-left were ultra-materialists and autistically structuralist thinkers, basically "if I don't see it with my own eyes and every aspect of it measured and tested in some turbo autismo fashion it ain't real".
>>18128601 (OP)
Modern left-right politics for 95% of people has literally nothing to do with actual policy or structural analysis and everything to do with just team identity politics.

>>18128601 (OP)
Modern art is the 'emperor's new clothes' phenomenon. Whoever follows those trends shows he has little integrity.

There was a modern art exhibition and me and my friends who were eating sandwiches piled the sandwich paper at the entrance of an exhibition room. Then people would go by and take photos of our garbage pile, and i took photos of them. Exposing them and making them feel humiliated.
Some people had integrity and sense of humor and would join in on the fun and themselves add their own garbage on top of our artistic garbage pile.

>>18130396
>Does anybody actually like the CIA?
No, obviously not. They're tax thieves at best and subversive rats at worst. They have caused more problems than they have ever solved.

>>18130402
>Meanwhile traditionally the far-left were ultra-materialists and autistically structuralist thinkers, basically "if I don't see it with my own eyes and every aspect of it measured and tested in some turbo autismo fashion it ain't real".
Also leftists:
>genes are fake

>>18130374
>if you don't drol over millions of the same muscular men sculptures then you are le leftist

>>18128601 (OP)
I think that's complete nonsense. You can find plenty of leftoids who are fans of big titty anime girls and plenty of rightoids into "Tumblr" artstyles. It's the same with proper art styles as well.

>>18130396
The CIA is a secret agency by its nature, so an issue is that most people don't know anything about them, which makes it easy to be like "muh CIA," but they seem like boring, normie sort of people with establishment positions. You will see retired / ex-CIA people run for political office and they also have think tanks and retiree associations that are public, and I watch these sometimes. As to their politics it runs the gamut from a kind of centrist or center-left viewpoint (like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama) to Tom Clancy-style conservatism. The main thing is these people all see themselves as patriots and pro-U.S.A. without any hesitation on that:
https://youtu.be/jxZ2nV02Kfk

>>18130402
>"Meanwhile traditionally the far-left were ultra-materialists and autistically structuralist thinkers,"
>The entire history or mankind saw vertical civilization, classes structures, univerals features like marriages and religion. All of these very openly observable phenomenons
>Marx "All of human history is clearly in the wrong. I will replace the normal, spontanehs human society with my made up utopia that exist only in my head. This clearly the result of my objective observation of reality and not a delusional God complex fantasy, BTW"

>>18130374
>he says, posting a photo of a statue of a ridiculous cartoon muscle man.

>>18128601 (OP)
liberals are hypocrites when it come to art

art can suck my balls

>>18130053
You have to remember that the generationally wealthy have homes full of academic and romantic paintings from when they were new.

Fascists like Evola were on the abstract art train though.

>>18130619
>pretty pictures of buildings that millions of hobbyist painters can match

>>18128601 (OP)
abstract art is a revolution against art, it elevates a shallow and hollowness of soul, a liberality in interpretation, an unmoored type of amorphousness of the soul.
lefties like this because it means they do whatever they want as they have no set parameters.
normal people dislike this because humans developed to have an inherent distaste for the bland, tasteless, and highly deviant.

>>18128909
the lack of subject matter IS what makes it propaganda, it is elevating something to the level of great art despite it having no similarity to great art and lacking any aspect of the spirit and essence of great art, it is an attack on Civilizational Standards which is a sign of a civilization progressing through its Autumnal stages.

>>18130051
no, they pretend to because they are cattle and think the clique of critics have a consensus that squiggly lines are le good.
Art's essence is a translation of meaning from one soul to another.
It would be tearing apart a language into babytalk, like zoomerspeak, and then saying "this is just as linguistically valid as German or English" despite its informational transfer rate and accuracy are vastly inferior.

There are objective ways to measure art, modern art fails every metric.
>noooo art is subjective
humans are NOT subjective creatures they all evolved in similar conditions which direct them toward the same ends.

>>18130396
CIA is bad because they pretended to fight commies but actually helped them decolonize the world

>>18130639
Isn't the point of being a student is the opportunity to learn and develop?

>>18128601 (OP)
The fucking ignorance of explicitely calling out fascists for not liking abstract art when italian fascism pushed and was actively pushed by the futurist movement

>>18130413
"Genes" are "fake" - the simplified mendelian genetics you get taught in middle/high school have fuck all to do with reality, DNA is much more complex than that. During Lysenko's time genetics were at that level of magical thinking that there's just a bunch of concrete puzzle pieces in the cells that each determine traits + it fed a lot into pseudoscience like eugenics. Lysenko wasn't right (though he was onto stuff like epigenetics) but not like western geneticists were correct either.

>>18130619
Disingenuous image.
Schiele and Hrdlicka were every bit as capable as Hitler was shown to be in his paintings at making proper art.
Never ever seen anything decent from Avramidis though, gotta admit.

>>18130393
Every single developed countries government has programs for funding the arts anon, many European and Asian countries have similar programs. It's not the conspiracy you think it is. You just think it's bad because the art isn't to your personal taste
>>18130396
Yes but anyone who does is either accused of being CIA themselves or are accused of being a clueless normalfag. The CIA has over 21,500 employees and that's just the ones we know about

>>18130619
They had to demonstrate significant ability to graduate - they could make classical paintings, they just decided they wanted to do that instead. Hitler couldn't even do prespective on buildings right.
I have no idea why /pol/jaks think the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts was some kind of liberal institution that only wanted le evil modern art. The guy who dumped shitler's application in the trash literally spent most of his career painting monumental classical art with greek and roman mythology, and had students constantly whine that he was too conservative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Griepenkerl&wprov=rarw1

>>18131476
>Every single developed countries government has programs for funding the arts anon
When you have actual proof of the cia selecting specific artist to counteract the influence of russian artists, it kinda becomes propaganda rather than promotion of the arts.
Basically dei shit ante litteram.

>>18132129
>to counteract the influence of russian artists,
It was the Cold War anon, ANY art the CIA promoted would've been to "counteract the influence of Russian artists" regardless of how you feel about it. The State Department sponsored artists they felt were good examples of American Avant Garde culture as this was big in Western Europe at the time and they wanted to showcase American artists to mid 20th century Western European audiences.

>>18132135
>ANY art the CIA promoted would've been to "counteract the influence of Russian artists"
That's the point the other anon was making though, that Pollock appreciation isn't organic but astroturfed for propaganda purposes.
You may say it doesn't count as conspiracy because everyone with a brain realizes that art has always been a vehicle for propaganda, but go calling Pollock a shitter in academic environments and see whether they realized yet they're just useful idiots and the people they grew up mocking for calling out the naked king were right all along.

>>18132158
>that Pollock appreciation isn't organic but astroturfed for propaganda purposes.
Not accurate, the CIA didn't literally commission artworks, they sponsored existing artists, not the same thing. Looking at Pollock and dismissing it because it just looks like noise is a very lazy and superficial way of analyzing artwork, you can say you understand abstract expressionism and still not like it, but dismissing it outright is just dumb, and calling it an attempt at propaganda (bear in mind the entire point of abstract expressionism is that it lacks concrete subject matter anyways) is just insane

>>18132171
>the CIA didn't literally commission artworks, they sponsored existing artists, not the same thing
No, it's pretty much the same thing. Sponsoring certain styles over others sends a message just as loud as commissioning a piece propagandizing specific ideas or events.
>Looking at Pollock and dismissing it because it just looks like noise is a very lazy and superficial way of analyzing artwork
That's not my problem with it, it's that in your own words
>the entire point of abstract expressionism is that it lacks concrete subject matter
Which is basically an admission of abstract espressionism being noise, and its interpretation words salad.
Listening to art critics feels like being in a corporate meeting at a shit company.

it seems to be a authoritarian or totalitarian penchant to ban abstract art or just have a state approved artstyle like ussr realism or nazi romantic realism (both are romantic derived anyway)