Philosophers are a waste of time. The real writings of substance come from artists. Artists are geniuses who tap into a reality that the philosopher wishes they could tap into. Poets explain the world better than any philosopher. You notice that when you read philosophers. The academic tricks and the need to be "original" even if it's entirely wrong. It's like someone writing about objects while being blind. They try their hardest but they never make it. They have no real understanding. I'm a bad writer so maybe someone else can rewrite the point I'm trying to make into something that makes more sense.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Moviemakers are not artists
t. American
No he's right. Its infested by israelites
Stupid fricking esl
Uh, im from the states
That's a sad state of affairs then.
t.Tarantino
Yes they are.
Films are more of a craft, a highly technical one, than art.
Agree. Movies are like cooking
Get your head out of your ass. Movies can be art.
Movies are a far superior art form compared to literature (see pic).
Go away, moron.
Come on now.
To make it clearer the philosopher doesn't understand the world. He invents out of thin air an idea of reality. It's an invention it's not reality. It's learning philosophical and academic technique. It's not understanding reality and writing about it. It's sitting down and thinking "how can I invent a reality that sounds different from the guy before me."
Artists on the other hand understand a reality that philosophers don't see. It's not an invention. The creative work comes from this reality they see. They create based on the reality they don't create the reality.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABAHAGAGAGAGA
this is what "creative types" really believe isn't it. In fact I would say the opposite; someone with a career in the arts:
1) is on average a lower IQ than most other subjects
2) is more likely to have a sheltered and naive view of the world
There are exceptions of course, but these are so rare. This is why great artists are so underwhelming when you find out what they think, as its usually something predictable or trendy or not well thought out. You miss the whole point of artists though, their job is not to give a coherent analysis of "reality" or existence around them, but a personal account filtered through their conscience. Even photographers, are they not just taking pictures of the real world? They are but they are not taking just just any picture. They seek out, wait, size up, then strike only when what they are picturing highlights and exaggerates something they find interesting in reality, usually with the help of good framing, technique, etc, but these are never more than just a type of observation, make a few layers deep in meaning. Nothing can compare with the profundity of thought a book of words can deliver
>You notice that when you read philosophers. The academic tricks and the need to be "original" even if it's entirely wrong.
Who are you talking about here? Not any ohilosopher I've read
>It's like someone writing about objects while being blind.
Blind to what? The majesties of film theory?
>he doesn't understand the world
Oh, as opposed to an artist? Ahahhaha
>He invents out of thin air an idea of reality. It's an invention it's not reality. It's learning philosophical and academic technique. It's not understanding reality and writing about it.
You should probably read some actual philosophy my friend
>"how can I invent a reality that sounds different from the guy before me."
It's pretty clear if you know more than nothing about the topic, that no good philosopher has ever gotten away with thinking like that.
Miss me with your 2 deep 4 u bullshit. There is no mystery or hidden depth to it, especially film. Artists that want to be more philosophical in their subject have to remain humble, or be well read in philosophy. If not they will embarress themselves.
I should have been clearer in the post. I don't just mean any artist or creative person. I'm talking specifically about artistic genius which allows you to see this new reality. There are very few of these geniuses to ever exist let alone in our times.
>Who are you talking about here? Not any ohilosopher I've read
Just about every philosopher I've read. Have you seen the history of philosophy? It's all about being different from the last guy.
>Blind to what?
It's hard to describe. I already said I'm not so good with words maybe someone later on can explain it better.
>Oh, as opposed to an artist? Ahahhaha
Yes actually and I am convinced of this each time I consume a piece of art and then read a philosophy book.
>You should probably read some actual philosophy my friend
I have a philosophy B.A. I've read just about every popular philosopher.
> that no good philosopher has ever gotten away with thinking like that.
They don't tell you but it's obvious. This philosopher is working off this guy but slightly different and then the next guy is working off that guy but slightly different. Once in a while some great philosopher breaks the mold and invents something entirely new and then each guy works off that
>Once in a while some great philosopher breaks the mold and invents something entirely new
Don't you consider that to be art?
It is, in fact, the other way round. A great work of art can include any system of philosophy within it. Take Robert Frank's book of photographs: The Americans. The Evolutionist will consider what the cultural facets say about the stages of Man. The Sociologist will analyze the social reality of Frank's Tableaux. The Heideggerian will consider how the figures within are grounded in Being. The Semiotician might perceive the way signs like the American Flag is permutated. The Marxist will consider the satirical interplay of the classes. The ordinary American will see their milieu replicated. Etcetra, etcetra. Thus the work of art becomes a malleable piece of reality that can refract any level of thought. So to speak of the meaning of the art is a mistake. Rather, Art deals with the sense of the ineffable that condenses meaning while going beyond it. You can read a long analysis of power, but when immersed in the reality of it, when you are the politician having to act, is it not more likely Ozymandias that will ring in the chambers of the brain? This is why the artist can be a blithering idiot, a bigot, a buffoon, and a lunatic and still be great. He is the channel whereby you touch the infinite multiplicity of the ideal in a concrete manner, while the philosopher attempts to explicate the ideal. The artist creates the deepest surface. Consider all the connotations of that word: 'surface'.
Great response, utterly wasted on the subhuman you replied to though.
Yeah brilliant... now explain why that renders philosophy pointless. You say a blithering idiot can be a great artist, but a blithering artist can't come up with coherent, fascinating new ways to approach a subject. Your whole approach seems to be based on a complete disregard for the truth, and a fetishization of the "infinite multiplicity" and people's perception of it. For example:
>Robert Frank's book of photographs: The Americans.
So this is a genius work of art because... people with different philosophical/political implications see different things in it? Sounds completely redundant then, that sounds like almost anything. The artist is either making decisions, or making none at all, in which case it's not art. He makes particular decisions for a reason, there is an end goal, something he is interested in, or a message, philosophical or not, that he trys to distill from reality into his work. It's easier for the common person to digest an idea this way, but the truth is in logic.
I'm not saying it renders philosophy pointless. I don't take OP's position. Rather, Philosophy is the soil, Art is the fruit. Go read Heidegger's The Origin of the Work of Art since you like philosophy and require the density of concept to explain it.
People with different philosophical positions can see anything in anything if they try hard enough. But, in the greatest art, it's immediate and fertile. It unconceals the thing. An artist may create for a specific pet purpose, but, if they are good enough, the art transcends that purpose. And there's a logic there, but it's different from a sort of linear logic. It's instead grounded in pattern recognition and gestalt. If I'm a Christian I may write: "Life is suffering, please free me God!" But nobody's going to give a shit about the way I say it, versus the way Donne says it:
Thou hast made me, and shall thy work decay?
Repair me now, for now mine end doth haste,
I run to death, and death meets me as fast,
And all my pleasures are like yesterday;
I dare not move my dim eyes any way,
Despair behind, and death before doth cast
Such terror, and my feebled flesh doth waste
By sin in it, which it towards hell doth weigh.
Only thou art above, and when towards thee
By thy leave I can look, I rise again;
But our old subtle foe so tempteth me,
That not one hour I can myself sustain;
Thy grace may wing me to prevent his art,
And thou like adamant draw mine iron heart.
This is because Donne's metaphors, contrasts, lyricism, and music makes it tangible to others who may not share his position. Even without knowing Christ, you can see the struggle against mortality within the very words.
Anyway, why approach Art with such belligerence? I know this is IQfy but the world isn't a contest. Like a tree, a flower, the Art is an object which you can draw as much from based on how deeply you're willing to engage with it. If you don't want to engage, then you don't need to, but the flower and tree and painting will still exist. The best person to voice the purpose of Art, though, is probably Rilke, in his Duino Elegies:
Praise this world to the angel, not the unsayable one,
you can’t impress him with glorious emotion; in the universe
where he feels more powerfully, you are a novice. So show him
something simple which, formed over generations,
lives as our own, near our hand and within our gaze.
Tell him of Things. He will stand astonished; as you stood
by the rope-maker in Rome or the potter along the Nile.
Show him how happy a Thing can be, how innocent and ours,
how even lamenting grief purely decides to take form,
serves as a Thing, or dies into a Thing –, and blissfully
escapes far beyond the violin. – And these Things,
which live by perishing, know you are praising them; transient,
they look to us for deliverance: us, the most transient of all.
Nice post. Post more. Post haste.
if philosophy is empty and art is superior in expressive ability, why are you'll writing out philosophical arguments instead of poems or novels?
The philosopher with humongous pate
Thinks he can, to the world, relate
Those greater things to his meagre whole
And, eventually, come to know
The stars that cross the endless sky,
The green of the grass (what is their why?),
The movement of the men at arms,
The littlest puddle's placid charm,
And thus he thinks, and dreams, and conjures
Systems of air, like a wizened forger
With many false colours, void and rust,
Making the painting, removing the trust
Of the simple, finding the general stew
We inhabit fathomless of its fools,
And, one day, he hopes his dream
Will replace the large, flawed natural thing.
O, philosopher, why did you not know
Artists had done it, already, ago?
>starts off with Black person twitter fake laughter
not even gonna read your shitty post.
Think it, dream it, do it. [Samuel H]
Why are you referring to philosophical terms?
>It is a question here of explications such as I alone can give, since there never was another man who was poet and musician at once, in my sense, and therefore to whom an insight into inner processes has become possible such as could be expected of no other.
just stop reading continental philosophy
No
>Muh reality
Sounds to me like you missed out on the radical skepticism/pyrrhonism meme in the early stages of studying philosophy
I don’t get the appeal of Tarkovsky. He’s the most humorless filmmaker of all time
Humor is for children and dimwits
Your mom is a dimwit, she gave birth you after all. Should try harder to not get raped next time
You sound like you're ready to take on the world, bro. Things'll change when you start noticing girls. You'll be ok. x
Art can contain the apprehension of something otherwise unable to be articulated through words.
Art can contain philosophy, but philosophy cannot contain Art. There are artists who happen to be philosophers (Plato, Nietzsche, Borges) but no philosopher is an artist. You can imagine a novel that contains a philosophy system in it, but you cannot imagine a philosophy system that contains a novel. Thus, Art is greater.
>The real writings of substance come from artists
Most of it is trash, but the outliers are fantastic, I agree.
158. Favorite books. People need to distinguish between novels (i.e. artistic books) and proper books. If your favorite book is a novel you are an idiot.
732. The Da Vinci Code. A bunch of silly hocus pocus. But I know the real secrets of the universe, so why not make an artwork out of them? A film or a novel in the Da Vinci Code vein, but with the real secrets instead of silly hocus pocus. But here's the catch: this is impossible. For if the excitement and the thrill of 13 billion years of evolution could be condensed into a 300-page novel or a two-hour feature film, what would be the point of the universe's existence? That's why the universe is the artwork that must be lived (or "the game that must be played", as Arthur Rubinstein put it). And the plot of artworks like the Da Vinci Code must be nonsense, to one degree or another, since the only plot that can be completely logical, consistent and coherent is the universe's, which takes billions of years to fully unfold, and perhaps even more.
Do you see now how moronic it is of the subhumans to seek enlightenment in art and entertainment in philosophy instead of the other way around?
orgyofthewill.net
Tarkovski is a literal moron and his belief system is completely inconsistent. He jumps from platoninism to materialism to christianism in a single page. He can't decide if art should imitate life, if it should embody platonic ideals or if it's simply whatever the artist desires. He says art represents truth, then says that arts means whatever the consumer feels like, then calls anyone who didn't understand what he had envisioned with Stalker's zone a mumblimg moron and says his word is final because he is the author.
I think both art and philosophy are great, but whichever one you like more will depend on your dispositions and personality. All this talk of "philosophy is of little value" is frankly stupid.
Artists wish they had the intellectual competency of philosophers.
No they don't. No one gives a frick about philosophers besides philosophers.
that's blatantly not true
>Poets explain the world better than any philosopher
True but the greatest philosophers are essentially poets, like Plato who is obviously a frustrated poet and that’s why he hates them so much.
this thread makes no sense
an artist seeks to express something in a unique nearly universal way for everyone to see and matbe understand
they are not explaining this reality in the art they share their feelings about reality
also give an example of a philosopher being rendered "ENTIRELY" wrong
>also give an example of a philosopher being rendered "ENTIRELY" wrong
Marx
Wrongness in the sense of Wittgenstein's Fly-bottle.