Is Posting an Art?

[NoliMeTangere]

<p>and if it is, do we have our own posting movements?</p>

[Wartsandall]

<p>What defines a posting movement?</p>

[leafblade1354]

<p>Yes. For instance, I can recognize people who have “returned” by their names and, failing that, their style of posting.</p>

<p>^Posting movement=style of posting?</p>

[nwgolfer321]

<p>…</p>

<p>there</p>

[leafblade1354]

<p>KK, that’s better. <em>relief</em></p>

<p>OK, that’s creepy. 26 seconds.</p>

[leafblade1354]

<p>What signifies a poppet,
And what dignifies a moppet
Is a toffet of hair
More than three hairs thick</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>^ wow, random</p>

[leafblade1354]

<p>:confused: Is a “toffet” even a recognized entity?</p>

[nwgolfer321]

<p>I honestly don’t understand this thread.</p>

[Wartsandall]

<p>I don’t either.</p>

[fairy_dreams]

<p>^^^No one understands art either.</p>

[leafblade1354]

<p>^And yet, there is an abundance of self-proclaimed as well as paid art critics.</p>

[Wartsandall]

<p>^Have you read * The Picture of Dorian Gray *?</p>

<p>I think that you would enjoy it.</p>

<p>

The artist is the creator of beautiful things.
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art’s aim.
The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.
The highest, as the lowest, form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.
Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.
They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book.
Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.
The nineteenth century dislike of Realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.
The nineteenth century dislike of Romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.
The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.
No artist has ethical sypathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.
No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.
Thought and language are the to the artist instruments of an art.
Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art. From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor’s craft is the type.
All art is at once surface and symbol.
Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.
Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.
Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.
When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself.
We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.

</p>

[xrCalico23]

<p>^Omg, that’s one of my favorite passages!</p>

[leafblade1354]

<p>

The nineteenth century dislike of Realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.
The nineteenth century dislike of Romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.

Who is this Caliban and why does he insist on seeing his own ugly face in the mirror?</p>

[xrCalico23]

<p>He’s like some kind of a monster. Mythological reference. Well, this is how I always interpreted it: we, the overall poplulation and the intended audience of art, are like the Caliban who is in reality quite ugly. We dislike Realism because realistic works show us our own image, our own depravity, of which we dlisliking facing. But at the same time we also complain of artisitc works that are overly romantic, because, I guess, we cannot find ourselves in it or relate to art that is too perfect in rendering.</p>

[leafblade1354]

<p>^Very good! That makes sense.</p>

<p>

All art is at once surface and symbol.
Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.
Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.

</p>

<p>The true artist is the one in whose works there are inherent those symbols and ideas which resonate with us as humans, and from whose works these symbols are inseparable.</p>

[xrCalico23]

<p>

Who is this Caliban and why does he insist on seeing his own ugly face in the mirror?

</p>

<p>Why do people all dislike overly cheesy, romantic tales like Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight that tell “perfect” love stories? Why do we want to throw away the pretense and face the reality? Reality is soooo depressing.</p>

[Dnerd]

<p>Nope, but ■■■■■■■■ is definitely an art.</p>

[fairy_dreams]

<p>^It’s like graffiti.</p>