Aesthetics Are A Moral Imperative

[Pixel--Dude]

Aesthetic and moral values go hand in hand. Not only practically like when we assess artwork which raise moral questions, but also theoretically, such as Kant's theory that beauty is the symbol of morality.

Kant characterised the interest in beauty as "moral" because it derives from moral interest in practical ends. As such, an interest in beauty indicates a person's predisposition to a good moral disposition. A theory in which I agree.

Aesthetic beauty is one of the most important traditional values, something vastly undervalued in modern society since the emergence of post modern art. Post modern art is nothing but a perverse mockery of beauty and seeks to elevate its own value to the same standard as truly masterful works of art which meet the highest standard of aesthetic beauty. Again there is the subversion of aesthetic ideals and beauty where that which is ugly is artificially elevated to the same level as authentic aesthetic beauty.

You see a piece of art and you aesthetically experience that artwork. Realising how it is a composite yet unitary substance of matter and spirit. Human expression captured on a canvass for others to experience aesthetically. Post modern art only mocks beauty and is a disgusting synthetic piece of trash which reflects the degeneracy of the modern age through it's subversion of aesthetic values.

Conceptions of beauty and aesthetic values have degenerated over time. Below I'll go over some of the philosophical conceptions of beauty.

IDEALIST: Those who are idealists believe in art looking better than what it represents. They hold the metaphysical view that associates reality to ideas in the mind rather than to material objects. It lays emphasis on the mental or spiritual components of experience. Like materialism is strictly focused on matter, idealism is strictly focused on spirit.

In Plato's Theory of Forms he believed that everything in reality was the artistic expression of pure spirit. So in the ethereal would exist the perfect tree for example, and it is expressed artistically into reality in an imperfect form.

He believed that reality is a mental construct closely connected to ideas. A plane of metaphysical perfect representations of any given thing, but they are created imperfectly in physical reality. In the same way when you paint something it never looks how you envisioned it

CLASSICAL: People who subscribe to the classical conception of beauty believe that beauty consists of an arrangement of integral parts into a coherent whole, according to symmetry, proportion and harmony.

Aristotle had a similar idea of beauty as Kant, in the sense that it isn't based on personal preference, but in truth. According to Aristotle beauty could be measured. “The chief forms of beauty are order and symmetry and definiteness, which the mathematical sciences demonstrate in a special degree,”.

We can see this in nature as well with the Golden ratio. Nature is definitely beautiful. There is nothing more aesthetically pleasing than viewing vast expanses of nature from a mountain top for example. Brahman is certainly artistic with their creation.

UTILITITARIAN: Those who hold the utilitarian view on art believe that art should be directly and immediately useful to society in order for it to have any meaning.

For example society is trying to resolve an issue, utilitarians believe that art should be used to resolve that issue, therefore only having a practical application. This removes any spiritual connections with art as shown in the Classical and Idealist conceptions of beauty and reduces art to nothing more than a tool with no deeper meaning at all.

POSTMODERN: The postmodern conception of beauty seeks to subvert previous conceptions of beauty and broaden the scope of what is considered as art. They espouse this philosophy of "relativism" where there is no such thing as objective truth, such as true aesthetic beauty. Instead they are focused more on the relative truths of each person.

Similar to how gender is now a relative truth specific to each person and how they feel, art and all its meaning has been gradually eroded and degenerated into the shit we see today with Postmodernism.

One example of postmodern art is a piece of shit in a jar! How the f**k can a turd in a jar be elevated to the status of art in the first place?! How can a piece of shit in a jar be elevated to the same level as the Mona Lisa or other such classical masterpieces of the Renaissance?!

This is why I think aesthetics are a moral imperative. Aristotle and Plato had differing, but normal conceptions of aesthetic beauty, connecting it with objective reality and spirituality. Even Chinese philosophers like Confucious believed beauty and goodness were connected.

[Lucas88]

Kant characterised the interest in beauty as "moral" because it derives from moral interest in practical ends. As such, an interest in beauty indicates a person's predisposition to a good moral disposition. A theory in which I agree.

While I dislike Kant's moral philosophy overall, I agree that a strong appreciation for beauty is indicative of a high level of consciousness.

Metaphysically I'm of the view that all parts of reality "vibrate" on a scale of frequencies from the lowest and most chaotic all the way to the highest and most ordered. The lower frequencies of vibration inform the negative and ugly side of the Creation's duality while the higher frequencies inform the positive and beautiful side. Everything vibrates at its own frequency somewhere along this scale whether it be a person's individual consciousness, a thought, an emotion, an activity, or a created work. High-vibrational people gravitate towards thoughts, activities and creations at frequencies at the higher end of the scale which result in edification (good will, noble thoughts, pursuit of wisdom and beauty, etc.) while low-vibrational people are naturally attracted to frequencies of the lower end which result in entropy and destruction (vices, addictions, hostility, indecency, anti-aesthetics, etc.). All of this works through a system of soul resonance.

The same applies to the realm of art and aesthetics.

Those whose consciousness vibrates at a higher frequency will always have a natural affinity to truly beautiful forms of art characterized by incredible harmony and a high level of rational order. They'll most likely be drawn to classical masterpieces such as the sublime art of the Renaissance. Their musical preferences will be dominated by genres full of harmony and euphony of sound.

Those whose consciousness vibrates at a lower frequency on the other hand will often be drawn to much uglier forms of art and culture characterized by disharmony, distortion, disorder and vulgarity. They tend to prefer much baser artworks, genres of music full of discordant sounds and negative emotions, and unsightly styles of architecture. In the more extreme cases low-vibrational people will be in favor of anti-art and anti-aesthetics which mock true beauty and celebrate ugliness as is the case with the postmodern movement. This is the point where we see a flipped urinal or a turd in a jar being promoted as "art" by sick, ugly, perverse human beings.

I believe that the subversion of true art and beauty and the promotion of anti-art and anti-aesthetics was all done by design. Certain elements of the (((global elite))) which finance art and control the market decided at the beginning of the 20th century that they were going to destroy true art and promote ugliness. Such people are ugly demonic individuals themselves. They wish to recreate the whole of civilization in their own image and drag everybody down to their own frequency of absolute perversion. Art and popular culture have been their principal medium. Through certain planned movements and cultural phenomena they have managed to gradually reduce the frequency of our habitats and make the world much more demonic.

Miles Mathis has some good in-depth articles about how the elites intentionally subverted art and popular culture. You can check them out on his website: http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html

[gsjackson]

Agree with the OP, and believe that ugliness is a big part of the plan to subvert the social order and take control. It's just astounding to me how much uglier in general people have gotten over the past 40 years -- to put it bluntly. Roger Scruton's work (recently gone to his reward) might be worth a look for those interested in the philosophy of beauty. He was the leading name in that niche in the anglo world.

[Lucas88]

Agree with the OP, and believe that ugliness is a big part of the plan to subvert the social order and take control. It's just astounding to me how much uglier in general people have gotten over the past 40 years -- to put it bluntly. Roger Scruton's work (recently gone to his reward) might be worth a look for those interested in the philosophy of beauty. He was the leading name in that niche in the anglo world.

Ugliness is definitely part of the plan to subvert the social order. Modern capitalist nations since the beginning of the 20th century have promoted the most drab styles of architecture. At the same time the USSR developed its own "artistic" style of socialist realism and sought to vilify any remnant of classical form. I believe that this all serves a specific purpose on an occult level. Such soulless architecture with its drab appearance and its greyish monotone is intended to disconnect us from all natural joy and humanity and instead connect us to an inhuman, robotic, dystopian industrialism focused solely on production, consumption and the exchange of commodities. The plan involves the negative engineering of human behavior through immersion within lower aesthetic frequencies.

I've come across some of Roger Scruton's work in the past but I didn't know that he had written extensively on aesthetics and beauty. Aesthetics is a topic which interests me greatly. What books or essays of Roger Scruton on beauty can you recommend, @gsjackson? I'd love to check them out. Also are there any interesting works on aesthetics and beauty that you can recommend from other philosophical traditions such as the German one? I've read Schopenhauer's ideas on art but I don't like his pessimism. I particularly admire German philosophy for its depth. Thanks.

[Pixel--Dude]

Thanks for your responses @Lucas88 and @gsjackson I'm glad you both agree that an appreciation of true beauty is indicative of a higher form of consciousness.

Are there any artists or styles in particular you both like?

Lucas88 can you remember the postmodern art gallery we went to? The one with a big white tapestry that had a big brown smeer of paint down it and looked like a piece of bog roll someone wiped their arse with? Also the chair someone had thrown a bucket of paint over, a painted stick leaning against a wall and a blank canvass espousing true minimalist expression these "art" works were seen more as a joke than anything brilliant or creative.

Postmodernism just wants to elevate talentless weirdos into the category of artist without them having to show any true artistic talent. How can people say with a straight face that these jokes of artwork are art in the first place? It's either utter madness or outright degeneracy.

This is why aesthetics and a true appreciation of beauty are important. Not only does this appreciation show admiration for brilliant masterpieces as a credit to the artist, but it is also a key denominator in how moral someone is as a human being. As we've all said, Postmodernism is a degeneration of beauty and an admiration for the ugly and not the beautiful. This isn't some relative truth! It is objective truth!

I want to share some artwork from the Renaissance period into this group but I want them to appear as images rather than a link. Can anyone help with this? @Winston or @jamesbond? I go on Google images, share the link and select the image icon on the panel, but it still comes up as a link or a failed image. Since you're both tagged, what do you think to this discussion and the theory that aesthetic appreciation for true beauty denotes high level of morality within a person?

[WilliamSmith]

Aesthetic beauty is one of the most important traditional values, something vastly undervalued in modern society since the emergence of post modern art. Post modern art is nothing but a perverse mockery of beauty and seeks to elevate its own value to the same standard as truly masterful works of art which meet the highest standard of aesthetic beauty.

Wow, fantastic thread! While some elements of beauty are "in the eye of the beholder," I agree with this strongly, and join @gsjackson in thank you for your thoughts, gentlemen.

Let me kick it off with Albert Bierstadt's "Among the Sierra Nevada Mountains" c. 1868:



Larger version:

[WilliamSmith]

I want to share some artwork from the Renaissance period into this group but I want them to appear as images rather than a link. Can anyone help with this? @Winston or @jamesbond? I go on Google images, share the link and select the image icon on the panel, but it still comes up as a link or a failed image. Since you're both tagged, what do you think to this discussion and the theory that aesthetic appreciation for true beauty denotes high level of morality within a person?

@Pixel--Dude

I personally lazily use this same https://imgbb.com/ when I make an embedded image post. You don't need an account with them at all, just go to their site, click the big blue button to upload a pic, then in the dropdown menu after it uploades (called "Embed Codes"), select "BBCode full linked" and you'll get something like this but without the asterisks **[**url=https://ibb.co/hsCWFSm][**img]https://i.ibb.co/6YNP0kW/Albert-Biersta ... s-1866.jpg[/img**][/url**]

...which pasted in to a post without those extra "" marks does this:



The risk, obviously, is that if jews noticing us doing this on one particular platform, they'll get the tribe together to specifically eliminate all our posts on one platform, so it might be good to look at other image hosting platforms that do the same thing, in order to "diversify" our risk a bit.
But that's life for those of us who actually have the balls to fight the eternal war against their vile tribe, which is to blame for this so-called "postmodern" total war on truth and beauty worldwide.

Also, I save my stuff to an offline hard drive anyway so if they have it all taken down I vow to put all of it back up as long as this site is online, and if this one gets taken down I vow to give them 10x worse hell both offline and online in any way I can, both for as long as I can still draw breath, and as long as I can keep up my assault on them from after the grave as well.

[Pixel--Dude]

I want to share some artwork from the Renaissance period into this group but I want them to appear as images rather than a link. Can anyone help with this? @Winston or @jamesbond? I go on Google images, share the link and select the image icon on the panel, but it still comes up as a link or a failed image. Since you're both tagged, what do you think to this discussion and the theory that aesthetic appreciation for true beauty denotes high level of morality within a person?

@Pixel--Dude

I personally lazily use this same https://imgbb.com/ when I make an embedded image post. You don't need an account with them at all, just go to their site, click the big blue button to upload a pic, then in the dropdown menu after it uploades (called "Embed Codes"), select "BBCode full linked" and you'll get something like this but without the asterisks **[**url=https://ibb.co/hsCWFSm][**img]https://i.ibb.co/6YNP0kW/Albert-Biersta ... s-1866.jpg[/img**][/url**]

...which pasted in to a post without those extra "" marks does this:



The risk, obviously, is that if jews noticing us doing this on one particular platform, they'll get the tribe together to specifically eliminate all our posts on one platform, so it might be good to look at other image hosting platforms that do the same thing, in order to "diversify" our risk a bit.
But that's life for those of us who actually have the balls to fight the eternal war against their vile tribe, which is to blame for this so-called "postmodern" total war on truth and beauty worldwide.

Also, I save my stuff to an offline hard drive anyway so if they have it all taken down I vow to put all of it back up as long as this site is online, and if this one gets taken down I vow to give them 10x worse hell both offline and online in any way I can, both for as long as I can still draw breath, and as long as I can keep up my assault on them from after the grave as well.

Thank you for the gorgeous paintings. I will post some more and expand the topic into different styles that people might like. Sorry for such a late response, but I was certain I'd already replied to you.

Thanks for explaining the process of posting images. I tried it earlier in a conversation with MrMan and it still didn't work lol. I suppose I'll need to practice more before I get the hang of it.

[galii]

Depends what you desribe as asthetics but probably it is just another algorithm. For example we do like symmetry which is just another evolutional program.

[Pixel--Dude]

Depends what you desribe as asthetics but probably it is just another algorithm. For example we do like symmetry which is just another evolutional program.

What I would describe as aesthetic beauty is not relative. There is objective standards of beauty and anyone who appreciates that standard of beauty is moral. Anyone who does not is a degenerate. That's just how it is.

[galii]

Depends what you desribe as asthetics but probably it is just another algorithm. For example we do like symmetry which is just another evolutional program.

What I would describe as aesthetic beauty is not relative. There is objective standards of beauty and anyone who appreciates that standard of beauty is moral. Anyone who does not is a degenerate. That's just how it is.

Just like how flat earth just is, right?

[Pixel--Dude]

Depends what you desribe as asthetics but probably it is just another algorithm. For example we do like symmetry which is just another evolutional program.

What I would describe as aesthetic beauty is not relative. There is objective standards of beauty and anyone who appreciates that standard of beauty is moral. Anyone who does not is a degenerate. That's just how it is.

Just like how flat earth just is, right?

This thread has nothing to do with flat earth. Try to stay on topic, if you can concentrate for that long.

Besides, I never said I am a flat earther. I simply acknowledged that it could be true. Not that i expect simple minded individuals to accept anything other than what they're told by the mainstream.

You might want to go start a thread about teletubbies or something, @Galii this thread is for big boys.

[galii]

Depends what you desribe as asthetics but probably it is just another algorithm. For example we do like symmetry which is just another evolutional program.

What I would describe as aesthetic beauty is not relative. There is objective standards of beauty and anyone who appreciates that standard of beauty is moral. Anyone who does not is a degenerate. That's just how it is.

Just like how flat earth just is, right?

This thread has nothing to do with flat earth. Try to stay on topic, if you can concentrate for that long.

Besides, I never said I am a flat earther. I simply acknowledged that it could be true. Not that i expect simple minded individuals to accept anything other than what they're told by the mainstream.

You might want to go start a thread about teletubbies or something, @Galii this thread is for big boys.

I mean friends of flat earthers are flat earthers too somehow
No you are not a big boy you have to put in the years to get life experience. You have to be humble. Accept that you and we are just monkeys. That is why it took us 10k years to build planes and that with a lot of luck. It is natural that monkeys hate science because it is HARD and COUNTERINTUITIVE. Science is not the problem but our monkey brains if you weirdly looking for the truth.

[Pixel--Dude]

To expand a little on this topic I want to ask which art styles you guys are into. I'm just going to tag you guys who have commented so far.
@Lucas88
@WilliamSmith
@gsjackson

Which styles of art do you like?

Realism
Realism is the accurate, detailed, unembellished depiction of nature or of contemporary life. Most paintings from the Renaissance are painted in this style. Artists like Leonardo da Vinci etc. This style is used to represent subject matter as accurately as possible.


Mona Lisa - Leonardo da Vinci

Surrealism
Surrealism art consists of dream-like images and symbolic imagery. It often depicts a bizarre representation of every day objects. Salvador Dalí is an example of a surrealist artist. Here is one of his most famous paintings:


The Persistence of Memory - Salvador Dalí.

Cubism
The idea of this style is to show the whole structure of objects without techniques such as perspective. Instead the objects are decomposed to geometric shapes and simpler compounds to give perspective and distinct impressions. Here is a piece by Pablo Picasso painted in this style.


The Weeping Woman - Pablo Picasso.

Expressionism
Expressionism is an artistic style in which the artist seeks to depict not objective reality but rather the subjective emotions and responses that objects and events arouse within a person. The famous painting of The Scream is a famous example of this style.


The Scream - Edvard Munch

Minimalism
Minimalism focuses on the primary elements of artwork. Take this painting by Piet Mondrian posted below. I don't think artwork can get more minimalist than that unless he just published a blank canvass.


Composition With Red, Yellow & Blue - Piet Mondrian.

So what do you guys reckon to the various styles I posted? Which do you like? Which do you dislike and why? Are there any styles I missed out that deserve a mention? If so then feel free to add them.

[WilliamSmith]

I am low on data (Scotch heritage penny pincher) but will get back to you on this with lots of pics as well as my comments:

Ancient Chinese art, architecture and aesthetic style absolutely blows me away, I am crazy about it! The way they use brilliant intricate architecture, and use a hypnotic approach to build those amazing heavily laquered interiors and atmospheric lighting is also amazing. The Cantonese built tons of amazing things all over the place in their diaspora as well as on their own turf, but there's some exceptionally great stuff in Vietnam (which has its own interesting artistic traditions too mixing native, Chinese, and even French/European influences, as well as some from the old Khmer kingdoms they would brawl with in some older periods of history, as well as continuously brawling with the Chinese). But they mostly embraced Chinese aesthetic influences despite their fierce sense of distinct national identity and tradition of refusing to willingly just become vassals of China.

Traditional Japanese art is really cool, and they have some elements that are all their own, but what I like best in aesthetics still tends to be primarily an offshoot of embracing the Chinese styles. In music it is actually very much an exception: I like Chinese ancient/classical traditional music which is more sentimental a lot of times (sometimes gets zany), but Japanese traditional music (gagaku, shinto music, for example) is totally a creature of its own and unbelievably atmospheric and appealing. Their sense of integrating Shinto traditions in the beautiful natural environments they have there combined with the otherworldly nature of their music impresses me.

Anyway, of those Western styles, I personally only like realism or very ancient stuff, I can't stand any of it when it gets into abstraction and deliberate ugliness.

I mostly dislike Western art even though I acknowledge the amazing skill of realist painters and some European architecture (though can't say I'm too crazy about it except some very Germanic "gothic" looking stuff here and there).

The Western stuff I like:

Albert Bierstadt, a real legend. He influenced a lot of others in the amazing way he used lighting as well as being a masterful landscape painter.

There were some others from that optimistic late 1800s period with very nice skill, which was appreciated at that point before it all went to shit from degenerate art and abstraction being promoted as all the rage. Thomas Cole was kinda whacky yet had similarly strong skill.

Gustave Dore, an illustrator who actually worked in woodcuts, an astounding feat considering he's be one the very best. He also paints too.

There's some other good names in there I'm not thinking of off the top of my head, but it'll be a fun topic to return to.

Later on almost everything I ever see in "serious" art is a bunch of crap (I'm sure there's exceptions, but never saw too many), but people with more talent ended up in popular entertainment rather than the art scene:
I like what some vintage retro RPG artists did where they brought in a more "gothic" style, which was used quite a bit in stuff like 80's popular entertainment, and stayed pretty good up into the mid-1990s when aesthetic styles all started going down the tubes and lost their edge for the most part.