• Farman [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    3·
    1 year ago

    One could argue that great art has to have some level of creativity. And thus by deffinition cant be reactionary.

    Even if a reactionary makes good art. The art has to have creativity in that sense the art is no longer reactionary.

      • Farman [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Yes. But the art is very creative. He clearly has a positive vission not in the sense that its moraly good but in the sense that it adds something. So the art its not reactionary even if the artist is. Same with the campbellians. Reactionary art is that wothout a positive vission. Like hotel paintings. Or a lot of current literature. Its empty. And it correlates a lot with the left column

          • Farman [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Well we are talking about art. And while art is certaily influenced by material condition. I think art exsists in a realm of abstract ideas. And its reactionry character should relate to that realm.

            And as long as art is comunicating something new. Its moving the structure in the ideal realm of art forward. Its doing the work of art in exploring posivilities and expressing something. And its real world impact is not antirrevolutionary unless it promotes anti revolutionary ideas but if thats the case then those are not creative.

            Yet i see a lot of “art” that is reactionary in the sense that has no positive ideas. And that seems to be way more prevalent now. And even even if we judge it from its real world material impact this is clearly more anti revolutionary than art made by a reactionary that at least bring some new perspectives. That is why i made the distinction.