Why are politics so anti-aesthetic and anti/fa/ (pun intended) today?

Why are politics so anti-aesthetic and anti/fa/ (pun intended) today?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts_and_Crafts_movement
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

You could ask the same about architecture.
But you know the answer.

Everything that is beautiful and could instill pride has to be eradicated by the cultural marxist doctrine. Everything that reminds you of your roots and heritage has to be killed. Now, you need trigger words and trigger colors everywhere to align your thinking with what the masters want you to believe. It has to be as simple as possible so that the goyim must have to do as little thinking as possible.

Infantilization of the population, atomization of race, society and community, rampant hedonism and nihilism, seasoned with a good dose of apathy to create the perfect slave race where the illusion of choice is the epitome of existence.

True

...

...

...

...

...

Those are not political logos you retard, but coats of arms and military orders.

...

It's like they went from state to corporate

...

Why was everything so good back then and shit now the thread

this is how you spot underage

...

...

...

But why was it?

I didnt know coat of arms where political logo.

were*

Focus groups

was it?

what defines "better"? more ornaments equals better?

this is an infantile view that because something looks more complex it's better thinking that your opinion is the norm. kys

The problem is money. Back then the state could easily take all the money they need from the citizens and build all that beautiful things, just to make the impression, that they are so great.

Today it's more about efficiency and the function. Why spending thousans of euros on a logo, when that clear font is doing the same job?

Why you need to build a house in the old style, beautiful and full of art, when it's much much cheaper to just build a simple house? It's also easier to take care of.

We simply don't have the money anymore for those things. We rather spend it on the infrastructure, education, science, etc.
things that actually matter way more.

>Today it's more about efficiency and the function.

Is that why all westerner countries are so in debt? Efficacy over money concerns?

No one said that.

Enjoy your soulless glass cube

>Yet these people consume 24/7 the empty meaningles visuals of advertising campaigns, swallowing it all without complaints.

Why these double standards?

>. Back then the state could easily take all the money they need from the citizens and build all that beautiful things, just to make the impression, that they are so great.


Are you retarded? Are you saying that we had communism in Europe before left came to power and everything was built by a state?
Every street in Europe looked great because people wanted to be proud of their homes rather than save some money.
On of the things Marks fucked up was "giving means of production to the masses" meaning no more Guilds and you can build whatever you like. Guilds were keeping towns and cities beautifull.

I like to think of them as actual flags. You can ask a child to draw the flags of Japan, US, even England, but when you ask them to draw Wales' flag? Its not going to be perfect. If a child can draw it with ease, what is the chance you can draw it/remember it?

It's just not fair lads; why doesn't my small town church have the same power and budget that the Vatican did in the 1500's?
This world really is going to hell in a hand basket. I was born in the wrong generation.

>Why you need to build a house in the old style, beautiful and full of art, when it's much much cheaper to just build a simple house?

That retarded money meme again. Good goy.

I drive by that palos motel everyday lmao

>muh money!!

>shekels above everything!

Strawmanning is an infantile "argument."

It has nothing to do with complexity. There are plenty of modern buildings and art pieces that are convuluted beyond belief, and still equally hideous. Likewise, you can look at art deco American skycrapers for traditional architecture that isn't at all complex.

And "beauty is subjective" is bullshit. When there's a vast majority consensus among the population of something being either ugly or beautiful, it isn't a grey area.

The examples of classic architecture in these pics is actually rather ugly.
I'm not defending modern art, but you really should find better examples.

>what defines "better"?
most people define it as "building above mean sea level"

Once again another "American artist", but his artwork didnt last long.

>women voting
>vote buying by running defecits

I think it's something to do with propaganda. Even companies are going for simpler logos these days. They're easier to recognize.

The problem isn't a lack of talented artists, it's the tolerance towards talentless attention whores.

Also, the "less is more" meme needs to stop.

...

...

What went wrong?

>Comparing Dynastic family coat of arms to a fucking political parties logo.
I agree that modern party logos suck, but comparing them to family crest is fucking retarded.

Scruton approves

That's not really an excuse. My local orthodox church is still more simmilar to the second picture, though obviously not quite as grand.

>not understanding phenomenological reductions and intuition
>calling others underage
Retard please

You kiwis are the best

You people are brainlets. You are unable to divorce modern aesthetics from modern morality so you cling to the old and assume some kind of conspiracy for the new. People's lives are filled with too many impressions nowadays, via TV, Internet and travelling they simply can't bear to see a stucco on every facade and ornament on every furniture - this was much different in the 1900s.

And with modern art you always cherrypick the worst examples, among millions of others. It's as if you chose the stupidest shitpost, showed it to your friends and said: "This is what I come to Sup Forums for". Fact is modern art allows for a much wider variety of emotion, like Picasso's cubism which in a single picture expressed multiple angles and frames and puts emphasis on the objects which are most significant in the visual experience - realism cannot do that.

You are the forever contrarian, forever retarded dregs of conservatism.

There is objective quality in art and modern art is objectively not quality

>Fact is modern art allows for a much wider variety of emotion
Are you shitting me? Modern art is cold and vacant, just like the soul of its creator and those who defend it.

You didn't read my post, did you?
>modern art is objectively not quality
That's a dumb generalization.

You're going to get flamed but you're absolutely right.

My pet peeve is Sup Forums "modern architecture" threads. Fucking retards have no idea what they're talking about, at all.

>OP's_Squat_Plug.png

Every single piece of art after the ~1900s is "objectively not quality"?

I hate the "whoa man all art is subjective, this shit stain on a piece of paper is so profound" meme just as much as you, but swinging so hard in the other direction just shows you're a contrarian faggot.

What modern architecture is worth something these days ? It always looks like shit

Top ones are even logos. They're shields and coat of arms.

The simple logos allow for easy cheap reproduction on promotional materials. The more colors / complexity you use, the more expensive the logo is to put on things like print materials, signage, t-shirts, mugs, flags, keychains. The cheaper / faster it is to reproduce the logo, the further your message can be spread per dollar.

Theo only objective quality of art is the technical skill of the artist. Everything else is emotional experience, which is entirely subjective. What you label "objective" is just the consensus of the subjective.

>Modern art is cold and vacant

Picasso or Kandinsky certainly aren't, but Mondrian f.e. is, for the reason I mentioned above: People are too overloaded with everyday impressions, they buy art to put in their living rooms/offices and prefer not to have strong emotions every time they glance at it. The purpose of Romanticsm or Realism was to capture grandiose moments, portraits, or simply landscapes; people use photography for that nowadays.

>and prefer not to have strong emotions every time they glance at it.
You just agreed with what I said. Those people prefer something cold and meaningless because they'r dead inside.
>The purpose of Romanticsm or Realism was to capture grandiose moments, portraits, or simply landscapes;
Not necessarily. It was most of all about beauty, didn't have to be grandious. And when I say art I don't just mean painting, I'm thinking about architecture most of all since that's the most important art form by far.
> people use photography for that nowadays.
No they dont. Photography is literally the opposite of grandiose. It's ordinary, litarally a still image of real life.

You guys do know this is basically the same as saying "le my generation sucks D:

People who have no emotions seek strong emotions in art, a human can only hold so much emotion at once. All art aims at beauty, there's just more to beauty than humans and landscapes, and this is what abstract art is about: To find beauty outside of the world. Regarding photography, there are many grandiose and famous photographs, like "raising of the US flag on Iwo Jima".

No this generation actually sucks. And the one before it. And the other one before it.

99.9% of modern art is deconstructive. As a whole, modern art is a joke. It's hardly even art. Its lazy and tired drivel. When one or two artists reduce the craft purely to its forms, that is innovative. When everybody copies it for 100 years, its the death of culture. Art isn't just endless abstract fellatio, it has a practical purpose. Forms are meant as tools. Modern art is the equivalent of a software tech demo., its only purpose is to showcase the possibilities presented by an idea. It doesn't actually bring the idea to fruition by giving it a purpose beyond itself, it merely presents it. That idea of purpose has been lost nearly everywhere, even religious buildings and art have become subject to the deconstruction, essentially admitting defeat and signaling their own demise.

>People who have no emotions seek strong emotions in art, a human can only hold so much emotion at once.
You have grade A autism my man. No wonder you pretend to like modern crap.
> All art aims at beauty, there's just more to beauty than humans and landscapes
Well yah, architecture isn't about any of those.
>and this is what abstract art is about: To find beauty outside of the world.
I don't care where beauty comes from, it's just that modern art fails at providing any.
> Regarding photography, there are many grandiose and famous photographs, like "raising of the US flag on Iwo Jima".
Yah, everyone I know has that picture on the wall and are really inspired by it.

It's quite clear that you don't know what beauty is. The purpose of art is to sanctify a place. Modern architecture doesn't do that, and ussualy doesn't pretend to. It's just for function, just a shelter.

>Society has gone over a cliff and I'm afraid there is nothing left to do but wait for the impact.
>Beauty is actively rejected. The most basic purpose of art has been ignored in favor of pushing political messages.
>The stewards of our society are actively working to destroy it from within. They replace our cultural relics with monuments to vapidity.

>lol, u sayin u wer born in the wron decade??? XDXD

Get raped, Swedecuck.

Brutalism.

>Brutalism became popular with governmental and institutional clients, with numerous examples in English-speaking countries (the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia), Western Europe (France, Germany, Italy), the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc (Slovakia, Bulgaria), and places as disparate as Japan, India, Brazil, the Philippines, and Israel. Examples are typically massive in character (even when not large), fortress-like, with a predominance of exposed concrete construction, or in the case of the "brick brutalists", ruggedly combine detailed brickwork and concrete. There is often an emphasis on graphically expressing in the external elevations and in the whole-site architectural plan the main functions and people-flows of the buildings. Brutalism became popular for educational buildings (especially university buildings), but was relatively rare for corporate projects. Brutalism became favoured for many government projects, tower blocks (high-rise housing), and shopping centres.

>In its ruggedness and lack of concern to look comfortable or easy, Brutalism can be seen as a reaction by a younger generation to the lightness, optimism, and frivolity of some 1930s and 1940s architecture. In one critical appraisal by Banham, Brutalism was posited not as a style, but as the expression of an atmosphere among architects of moral seriousness. "Brutalism" as a term was not always consistently used by critics; architects usually avoided using it altogether. More recently, "brutalism" has become used in popular discourse to refer to buildings of the late twentieth century that are large or unpopular as a synonym for "brutal".

The first one has been replaced by photography. Cameras made realism useless.

Because Leftism/Communism/Abrahamism is against the natural way. It's not a coincidence that they do not value aesthetics, it is an integral part of their philosophy of being. They reject Beauty (as a natural, sacred absolute) and replace it with beauty (entirely up for debate and not subject to any sort of standards). They openly talk about their disgust for Beauty, it's not a secret - and it shows in everything they do: from the logos you mentioned to their architecture, clothes, hairstyles, mannerisms etc.

Capitalism destroyed everything.

Socialism never had a root in the West so the only possibility is capitalism fucked it up.

Think about how much money those beautiful buildings cost with their detailed art and design. Now consider it costs several times less to just simply apply a standard visual element to a building anywhere. It costs less to be less detailed, and the forever March of profit and progress will either demand you switch to building simply or go out of business.

Capitalism is a race to the bottom so you can earn the most profit per unit, no matter what the item is.

HRE was metal as fuck

Pragmatism took the place of idealism.

1. Decline of religion and the conquest of nature made the surroundings of people lack their wonder. Natural wonder was replaced by the wonders of modernity step by step.
2. The two world wars made people question reality and order, that they had accepted for quite some time. Why paint something from reality when reality had shown how extremely horrifying it can be (You try to live in a trench for 4 years and then see the beauty and divinity in mankind and nature). It also made people question the superiority of European culture as they realized that even the most advanced civilization on the planet was capable of being so mindboggingly inhumane and cruel. So the view on old European culture became more negative than positive as well.
3. Industrialization made things go faster but therefore there was also a huge decrease in detail because you need to understand things much more quickly and function therefore trumps beauty as a means of form

He's talking about Monarchy, you absolute fucking dunce.

The yellow balloon dog is neat IMO, also dont mind the rubber duck. The rest of the meaningless modern art is trash tho

Modern aesthetics are designed to be alienating. You aren't supposed to feel "at home". You are being conditioned to idolize mediocrity.

Beauty is flat-out objective because it's an innate reaction that's almost exactly the same in everyone who doesn't have a liberal education

1. No more misteries
2. We don't worship anything but modernity itself
3. Lady modernity asks for convenience and efficiency over anything
4. Anyone can now be an artist
5. Anyone can be hired for design
6. Designers are often egoists and self-centered. They refuse to harmonize their work with the work of others
7. The State of being beautiful is no longer an indisputable fact, but an opinion
8. The notion that 'Beautiful things can only be in a museum, everything else does not need to be'
9. Ads now have to be filled with Trademarks, Legal warnings and such, because people abuse he freedom they take for grant
10. Legal requirements are often met with the bare minimum. You will never see a beautiful Extintor sign or a well-made wheel-chair ramp
10. In order to compete, and be efficient; things are cramped, over-designed, noisy. They fight for short attention instead of wanting to be something we would actually like to look at
>TL;DR: We do the bare minimum because we are afraid of not being efficient as we think that beauty is not essential
>Fact is modern art allows for a much wider variety of emotion,
Jack of all trades, master of none. If a piece can mean anything then it means fucking nothing
People have to understand that even the simplest of things can be filled with beauty, an austere beauty should always surround us.

Lmao hourly rate, its just a nap bro.

...

>i prefer the way old architecture and art looked
>XDDD UR JUST A CONTRARIAN FAGGOT

Ok

Anyone know how to make tall buildings look good?
Pic related, but not all cities are ArtDeco or Neogothic

...

come join us on the official pol discord

uRR3JZt

REMEMBER TO SHARE WITH YOUR FRIENDS

...

photography cant capture things that dont exist

Should Also add
12. Modernity has come as an equaliser. Anyone can be anything, no one has very specific trades that we can train and perfect for years
13. Paradoxically, our jobs are highly specific. Nothing but doing the same thing every time, Who the fuck would be proud of that?
14. We do not give design jobs, arts and crafts any dignity. They are either only for leftist faggots or waiting for automation and mass production to

Something to read
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts_and_Crafts_movement

Educate yourself before you attempt to argue any further. If you don't I will have to assume you are stupid.

>If a piece can mean anything
>mean

'Meaning' is trivial. If an artwork has a defined meaning, then just write it on a piece of paper and skip the artwork. You can have art with meaning, but also without, the defining criterium is emotion - how does an artwork make you feel. You can also have artwork without emotion, but with aesthetics, then it's called design rather than art.

post-modernism

you don't get it: it's a brilliant comment on the modern multi-racial society. notice that whites are on top

>what is CGI
>B-BUT I SPENT SO MANY HOURS LEARNING MUH RITE BRUSH STROKES IM STILL MOST RELEVANT

Ohhhh, is that what it represents? I assumed it was a didactic piece designed to envoke a sense of racial guilt

what did you mean by this

that's the great thing about modern art. it's means whatever you want it to mean.

I thought it was a commentary on квac, referring to the election being hacked

lol

>reduce the craft purely to its forms, that is innovative. When everybody copies it for 100 years, its the death of culture

THIS. Finally, one you actually gets it. This is the problem with most of the popular modern art.

They overuse an art concept over and over and over. Okay, when they made an entire piece out of one concept the first time that was okay. But to have artists continue to be held up as explorative art geniuses for the same tired shit?

Come on. If anything those sorts of artists should be making material for an art class/book and should not be selling a piece showcasing one or two concepts for thousands to naive "modern art enthusiasts." Any basic artist can into those very basic concepts. And simple symbolisms are also overused.

All of these things should be used to create complex, involved, interesting pieces. But you won't see such an artwork praised by the art industry anymore.

Because people are more rational today? Pompous and aristocratic political image would only instil distrust.

>Romanticsm or Realism was to capture grandiose moments, portraits, or simply landscapes
>Being this retarded
You could argue that Realism was only about these things, but saying the same about Romanticism? You don't know shit about art

>tfw my church is still like the first
>there are no ''modern'' churches in italy
ahah