Amarna Forum

BAP published an article recently called "Classical Music and the Right." The death of classical music is something I've thought about a lot over the past 6 months or so and discussed with musician friends a few times. The article is alright and it touches on some thoughts I've had before, but it's overall insufficient. It's an "introduction," as he says at the end, and rambles and doesn't really go in-depth about anything. Note that while I will mostly be talking about music, because it's the art form I'm most knowledgeable about, this discussion should really be extended to art in general.

First, it's necessary to bring up that infamous essay of Wagner's, "Judaism in Music." Wagner's criticism of the Jewish musician is really a criticism of the "cultured Jew." The nobility had been replaced by the moneylenders, who had no connection to German (and European) culture, but strove to insert themselves into it. This is a familiar situation today, as even now the majority of art collectors are Jewish. (A friend of mine used to live in a decrepit old building owned by a fabulously wealthy Jewish slumlord, who has become quite the art collector despite having no interest in art prior to realizing that the walls of his mansion had too much empty space.)

Wagner Wrote:His connexion with the former comrades in his suffering, which he arrogantly tore asunder, it has stayed impossible for him to replace by a new connexion with that society whereto he has soared up. He stands in correlation with none but those who need his money: and never yet has money thriven to the point of knitting a goodly bond 'twixt man and man. Alien and apathetic stands the educated Jew in midst of a society he does not understand, with whose tastes and aspirations he does not sympathise, whose history and evolution have always been indifferent to him.

The Jewish artist, then, has two avenues. First, he can engage in pastiche (Mendelssohn is his example), mimicking the "greatest geniuses" of whatever art form "with quite distressing accuracy and deceptive likeness, just as parrots reel off human words and phrases, but also with just as little real feeling and expression as these foolish birds." The second, which Wagner doesn't mention, but becomes increasingly prominent after his death, is "deconstruction." This is often conflated with the development that each new generation of artists engages in. The difference between something like the Tristan chord, which develops harmony and something like Schoenberg's serialism, which destroys harmony should be obvious.

The situation we find ourselves in in the 21st century is that, for many art forms, we have all become Jewish artists. There is not a composer living today who is not a Mendelssohn or a Schoenberg. How did we get to this point? Wagner is right to connect it to the death of the nobility. We got rid of the aristocracy for their lesser cousins, the bourgeois and the intellectuals. Everywhere that high culture developed, it did so under the auspices of aristocratic patronage. The so-called First Viennese School includes some of history's greatest composers in large part due to the many small courts of the HRE that were interested in patronizing musicians. Elizabethan England produced Shakespeare for much the same reason. It seems obvious that in a world where the nouveaux riches are the "highest" people, that high art will not be so high. The elite patronage which all art depended on, with the partial exception of plays and operas, has been replaced by ticket sales and rich rubes looking to invest.

So, what can be done? I'm not convinced that classical music can be revived in a literal sense. BAP may be right about this. The death knell for classical music was the proliferation of all these "reconstruction" ensembles that play with period instruments and such. The intolerance for anachronism is a sure sign that we're no longer engaging with a living tradition. The rotting corpse is paraded around by wealthy Jews (and our new Jews, the Chinese) for "cultural enrichment," while it's parasitized by academics (who are universally Schoenbergs). This situation is not new; the metaphor is borrowed from Wagner.

None of this is to say that nothing good can be made without the Hapsburg seal of approval or something. I don't think that Butlerian jihad is necessary for art to be good again. An obvious solution might be for particular extremely wealthy people with good taste to become patrons of the arts. I'm not so optimistic about this idea. Many people have claimed that Thielbuxx are flowing into NYC hipster art scenes, which might be cause for celebration if they seemed to be producing anything worth a damn. The Rockefellers and other wealthy families put quite a bit of money into things in the early-to-mid-20th century with middling results. Until a method is found for beaming good taste into the minds of millionaires and billionaires, this seems doomed to fail. The Industrial Revolution led to a massive pouring forth of artistic talent in many places (New York City and Wales are instructive examples) which, lacking direction and refinement, quickly burnt out.

Government investment is another avenue, but obviously our rulers are philistines. The National Endowment for the Arts wasn't very successful from the start and it certainly isn't now. Ask anyone involved in running an orchestra or some other artistic endeavor and they will tell you that trying to get government grants is a huge waste of time. They are small, difficult to apply for, and these days they are only given out to projects about the profound suffering of black women in America. The Soviet Union kept classical music going a bit longer than in other nations, in part through massive state support with the aim of creating patriotic music as war propaganda, but more importantly through the youthful, ascendant musical culture they inherited from the Tsar. In any case, they burned out quickly after WWII. I'm not very familiar with the cultural policies of Germany and Italy. Maybe someone here has insight in this area.

What can be done, short of another Impresa di Fiume? The cult of ugliness has taken root everywhere. BAP is correct when he points out that no great artist is truly reactionary, from an artistic standpoint. Great artists forge new paths. But how can anyone do so now, when we've completely severed our connection to the tradition of practically every art form? A great artist cannot afford to not be reactionary at this point. A reaction against ugliness is necessary. How can a modern poet create a new poetry, in a time where poetry has been "deconstructed" all the way down to prose, without running the risk of creating cloying pastiche? The Pre-Raphaelites were far less reactionary than a painter would have to be today.

I apologize for how long and disorganized this post is. I've been adding and removing bits for days now, trying to pare it down to essential points. This'll have to be good enough

D'Annunzio is more important as a politician than a poet. I am convinced we already have a new D'Annunzio... Donald Trump. But he is influenced by Mein Kampf and What is to be Done much more than the Doctrine of Fascism or the Croatian city of musick... Fiume. What will come next in politicks is a new Gentile and a new doctrine of Fascism.

In literature itself we will soon have a new Ulysses which will combine the dialectick of the political philosophy of the Croatian city of musick... Fiume with that of Karl Marx.

To revitalize the arts we need magic and blood rituals. I’ve been reading Aleister Crowley and I see a part where he mentions metaphysics. Like for metaphysical energies to exist and find form they need blood sacrifices. Like Muslims need jihad, Christian’s need martyred and crusades. All ideas need blood to be realized, communism needs revolts and mass killings, fascism needs war and conquest. To survive the lion must eat the flesh of the gazelle, for art to be realized we must spill the blood of the ugly. Humanity has become to ugly and fat, to sluggish and stupid, the only way to save art is to kill ugly people, whole races even. Abos, bushmen, pygmies, niggers. And all ugly Whites too, also a lot of Chinese and Arabs.

I would encourage OP (and anybody is this thread really) to read the book "The Revolt of the Masses" by José Ortega y Gasset.

One of the more striking facts about modern "realist" art is that it feels so gay and hollow. Just look at this work by "Mark Maggiori" - it is real, but feels so boring, lifeless, and dull. 

I'm sure many people would jump to call this a masterpiece, but is it even memorable enough to be called a good work? It's technically skillful in it's execution, sure, but also completely unmemorable with weak composition. Compare with the truly vital works of Van Gogh, Monet, Klimt, and more, and I can hardly consider it of high quality. Art is not in technical skill, but in vision. The Norwood who marvels at technicality and trashes on brilliant composition contributes as much to this death of art as the Jew who deconstructs it. To truly understand and create art, you need vision outside of what most people see, and this is the talent that must be cultivated to return art to it's former state. Give a mediocre man a great education in art, and he will produce boredom. Give a great man a meager one, and he will make masterpieces. 

Also, art is alive in Japanese twitter accounts drawing Blue Archive girls.

What can be done? As guest above suggests, we should be looking at Japan. Probably the last advanced culture in the world that is still truly alive. They aren't zealous classical musicians, they don't paint scenes from the classics and the bible in old European styles, and that's why their cultural scenes are going to have more staying power than Soviet classical music. They don't need to look for cultured things to do because they are a culture.

Despite this, as we've discussed many times, the state of our culture does not mean we are doomed to have bad things. Our societies still even now produce great talents all the time. The problem varies a bit industry to industry but a large and essential problem of ours is who is recognised, elevated and empowered, and who is shackled, ordered around, made to serve, or even totally ignored if not attacked. This has really come into focus lately what with the fallout of Harvey Weinstein (who I'm sure we all stand with here), our society LOVES TO ATTACK ARTISTS. Real artists especially, not so much craftsmen who know their place in the communist bugman's small-poppy dystopia.


Very funny. But more seriously:






Japan is a place where more fine-natured weirdos and dreamers can realise their visions than any other culture on Earth. As I keep saying everywhere, manga in particular is like the ultimate pop-artform in terms of social utility. Anybody can make it with basic skills, the combination of writing and visuals allow for a massive breadth of potential forms and expressions, and organic audiences have developed with real interest and spending power down to fan-production levels, and from there a total weirdo can succeed upwards into getting movies made. America crucified the King of Pop. Japan recognised Akihito Tsukushi and elevated him from obscurity to international success. Imagine what America would do to this sweet man.



I know I'm talking about pop art here, which some of you may consider a different issue to "The Arts". If so, I disagree but would be happy to go into that subject if anybody cares to make an issue of it.

---

Quote:One of the more striking facts about modern "realist" art is that it feels so gay and hollow. Just look at this work by "Mark Maggiori" - it is real, but feels so boring, lifeless, and dull. 

A big problem in pop-art (cowboy paintings are pop-art) is that our societies have severed art from craft and then spent decades calling craftsmen artists. With predictably bad results. In Japan the arts are led by vision. Craft serves vision. In most of the west we have craft in search of a vision, mostly failing to find it, then just painting realistic cowboys because "That's art I suppose."

It's a problem I best saw summed up as "Artstation realistic Bowser". When you call anybody who can do some craft skill to some arbitrarily high technical standard an artist we're forced into the uncomfortable position of even having to wonder if something like this is "art".



I've expressed the same problems here in the general "art thread" (the fact someone could make a thread called that is more of the problem) in response to that Italian painter who does all the hands. Artstation Bowser: Prestige Edition.



The problem with this isn't that it's technically bad, it's that it's, like the cowboys, "gay and hollow".



I'm jumping around a bit in this post so I'll finish here with some thoughts from Anthony Ludovici, written about 100 years ago. The end of this excerpt I consider particularly relevant. What to do with uninspired high-craft.

Quote:"The cure for their malady was not to abolish finish. Only fools, such as empty-headed cafe-loafers, could have conceived such a cure. The cure was to correct their scheme of life or the scheme of life of their nation. The corrective would have consisted in giving a meaning to their lives, which might have given a meaning and a purpose to their skilful technique."

Back to where I started, I believe that the Japanese are the first world nation with the healthiest scheme of life. The state of their pop-art I believe makes this inarguable. Their default baseline inclinations are good. And their instinctive reaction to exceptional weirdos is good. Our culture's basline inclinations are bad. And our reactions to exceptional weirdos are bad. We cannot have an instinctively good cultural industry like them. But I believe we could have a good self-conscious one if the right people were in charge. And back to OP's issue. Is this a Jewish question? I guess that comes down to look at individual production managers and deciding case by case. Lots of people making lots of bad decisions. Jews probably heavily overrepresented but perhaps not that distinct a presence alongside an army of insane women and soycases.

Last thought for where our culture invests and sees value. I recently calculated the production costs of the tv show Euphoria by second of finished and aired footage.

Season 1 of Euphoria:


It's 457 minutes long.
It cost 165 million dollars to produce.
Which comes to 361k per minute.
Or 6k per second.

Who did this..?



We may have more of a problem than I thought. I swear I didn't know what this list would look like until it occurred to me to look 30 seconds ago.

And for some fun contrast: https://screenrant.com/most-expensive-an...er-episode



The most absurdly expensive, indulgent, and successful pop-art on Earth tops out at the cost of less than 30 seconds of Euphoria per episode.

Sorry if that was a bit of a ride, but I hope you got something out of this investigation.

(03-30-2023, 12:24 AM)anthony Wrote: [ -> ]Last thought for where our culture invests and sees value. I recently calculated the production costs of the tv show Euphoria by second of finished and aired footage.

Season 1 of Euphoria:


It's 457 minutes long.
It cost 165 million dollars to produce.
Which comes to 361k per minute.
Or 6k per second.

Who did this..?



We may have more of a problem than I thought. I swear I didn't know what this list would look like until it occurred to me to look 30 seconds ago.

And for some fun contrast: https://screenrant.com/most-expensive-an...er-episode



The most absurdly expensive, indulgent, and successful pop-art on Earth tops out at the cost of less than 30 seconds of Euphoria per episode.

Sorry if that was a bit of a ride, but I hope you got something out of this investigation.

Interestingly, I checked the budgets of some great anime, and saw one that had a close budget/minute comparison to Euphoria. The Tale of the Princess Kaguya.



That runs out to about 357,000 dollars per minute. So let's see what 360,000 dollars a minute gets you in America:

And here is what it gets you in Japan:

How can a culture fall so low?

Some things cannot be faked. Most people do not want art, especially now, before they used to want it without paying for it but the endless stream of regurgitation which will be augmented by AI ensures this tidal wave still has some growing to do, and now they don't really need it at all. Naturally, that will not stop them from talking about it the loudest and smothering it with invented rules and ethics and interpretations. There is no fixing the arts, genuine appreciation is just destined to become a much smaller niche. Most of the cancer in this field is just redundancy...there is an abstract, cargo culted demand for "art" as this societal pressure we are supposed to conform to which fuels endless garbage. But it's a mistake of scientific method to just assume that stream of energy and revenue can be appropriated and redirected to good ends. It's energy drawn from the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Tens of millions of redundant "music people" drown out the few who truly care because there was a time when selling vinyl platters of music was extremely profitable. The only work that needs to be done is to broadcast a signal for anyone out there "who is willing to listen" as Nobody says. The work of persisting and producing any kind of body of work now is the biggest difficulty, especially the more intricate and deliberate what you do is, but this acceleration of slop is at least giving a few decent people the clue to fuck off and not incorporate into the wider content generation scene now. Before you could fall into more satisfying and blinding copes as an indie artist.

Double posting in this thread because I have some more lines of thought to add. This may be a place I return to a lot...after all this subject is one of my favorites... 

Not enough discussion occurs about the vulnerability demonstrated with art. It's hard to accurately describe in words how inherently humbling it is to pursue a direct manifestation of your personal idea of goodness or beauty or excellence, and how even more exposed one feels showing it to others...multiplied by number of present recipients. Gynocracies and patriarchies have different ways of handling failure and the rough edges that clash and fail to fit together in social interactions. Art is itself a method of higher-frequency communication and the interaction between artist and audience falls within the framework of social interaction, even if it can be quite abstracted. Gynocratic societies naturally default to methods of policing social behaviors that don't involve physical force, as if society thinks itself to be a WOMAN then it will assume a certain level of physical impotence. Methods of policing behavior in gynocracy generally suck and fail because they are internal, through passive aggression gynocratic society attempts to instill neurotic self-censorship and self-policing into subjects as a means of steering their behavior towards its preferred paths. 

To take a momentary diversion...in my own discussions and studies and mental masturbations I have come to many axioms about this stuff and its spiritual mecahnics, one being that emotional interactions between the creator and the consumer act as a lightning rod that can greatly elevate the final products by creating a sense of deep urgency within an artist. In a society with more patriarchal assumptions, direct combat ends up being the format this takes. The downside is this means if you are Cabaret Voltaire, you will get pelted by rocks and have one of your members hospitalized at your early shows. But the upside is these reactions, even the dangerous and negative ones, are big, serious and intense. The exact kind of thing that creates that sense of urgency, that artists can feed off of and create feedback loops in their own work. Wherher one is received with great applause or great violence, this gives you something to PROVE. And if you failed to obtain these reactions, you know to push the envelope until you do. Or at least until your point of personal contentment. 

Gynocratic societies naturally go the opposite way. A stronger demand to be tolerant, docile, to suppress intense negtive feelings, a focus on agreeability and cultural osmosis. Direct, immediate and threatening reactions replaced by lukewarm community acceptance and simulated equality. The difficulty art movements have when organizing through a clueless organic method is the estrogen they are swimming and breathing in deforms their artistic corpus that of a hermaphroditic frog. Even on the right, art movements that people attempt to create rapidy devolve into niche communities increasingly resembling the three blind mice. Yet, overt intention does not work and networks and bonds naturally forming without a plan or pretense is the only thing that truly works. Its a fine line of incorporating this base lesson without letting it become SRS BSNS. 

As per the empowered female tendency to gravitate towards idiotic men with dulled senses, so too does the f'male art culture prefer to select for those who incorporate apathy into their aesthetic. The only way to rise above their low droning social rituals being to regard it as all lies, and put them in their place beneath them. This is fine in some cases, those of the rockstars and rappers and bombastic, front line personalities. But cerebral and more introspective, refined works just like cerebral, introspective refined MEN do not score well with the ladies. In fact, their place is something akin to the artistic friendzone. A low effort acknowledgement of the value they cannot see, done in a very procedural and lifeless manner which if taken seriously will unfold a great abyss of stagnation and depression.

(03-28-2023, 11:32 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]One of the more striking facts about modern "realist" art is that it feels so gay and hollow. Just look at this work by "Mark Maggiori" - it is real, but feels so boring, lifeless, and dull. 

I'm sure many people would jump to call this a masterpiece, but is it even memorable enough to be called a good work? It's technically skillful in it's execution, sure, but also completely unmemorable with weak composition. Compare with the truly vital works of Van Gogh, Monet, Klimt, and more, and I can hardly consider it of high quality. Art is not in technical skill, but in vision. The Norwood who marvels at technicality and trashes on brilliant composition contributes as much to this death of art as the Jew who deconstructs it. To truly understand and create art, you need vision outside of what most people see, and this is the talent that must be cultivated to return art to it's former state. Give a mediocre man a great education in art, and he will produce boredom. Give a great man a meager one, and he will make masterpieces. 

Also, art is alive in Japanese twitter accounts drawing Blue Archive girls.

I hate the plebian interest in "realistic" paintings. No soul, all technique. The same types who will be galvanised by the coming AI goyslop factory-hell.

(03-30-2023, 12:24 AM)anthony Wrote: [ -> ]Back to where I started, I believe that the Japanese are the first world nation with the healthiest scheme of life. The state of their pop-art I believe makes this inarguable. Their default baseline inclinations are good. And their instinctive reaction to exceptional weirdos is good. Our culture's basline inclinations are bad. And our reactions to exceptional weirdos are bad. We cannot have an instinctively good cultural industry like them. But I believe we could have a good self-conscious one if the right people were in charge. And back to OP's issue. Is this a Jewish question? I guess that comes down to look at individual production managers and deciding case by case. Lots of people making lots of bad decisions. Jews probably heavily overrepresented but perhaps not that distinct a presence alongside an army of insane women and soycases.

It's definitely not a Jewish question, but Wagner's analysis can be generalized and built on quite easily I think. I initially expected it to apply significantly less to American Jews, who are certainly more acculturated than 19th century German Jews, but I was surprised to find how well even some of the finer points applied. There are plenty of exceptions, of course (and there were even in Wagner's time, although I would imagine there are proportionally many more these days). It's more accurately described as a spiritual question.

That Anthony Ludovici passage is fantastic, thank you for sharing it. I've sent it to a few people. Never heard of him before.

Pop art is definitely worth discussing. In fact, it's probably the more worthwhile topic because the solutions to its problems are much more within reach. Increasingly I think that we'll just have to watch high art go quietly into the night pending some massive civilizational shake-up happens that creates circumstances for it to return. Of course, one of those circumstances is a vital low art from which to build, so focusing energy anywhere else is probably of marginal value at best.

(03-30-2023, 02:07 AM)a system is failing Wrote: [ -> ]The only work that needs to be done is to broadcast a signal for anyone out there "who is willing to listen" as Nobody says.

(03-30-2023, 05:55 AM)a system is failing Wrote: [ -> ]Gynocratic societies naturally go the opposite way. A stronger demand to be tolerant, docile, to suppress intense negtive feelings, a focus on agreeability and cultural osmosis. Direct, immediate and threatening reactions replaced by lukewarm community acceptance and simulated equality. The difficulty art movements have when organizing through a clueless organic method is the estrogen they are swimming and breathing in deforms their artistic corpus that of a hermaphroditic frog. Even on the right, art movements that people attempt to create rapidy devolve into niche communities increasingly resembling the three blind mice. Yet, overt intention does not work and networks and bonds naturally forming without a plan or pretense is the only thing that truly works. Its a fine line of incorporating this base lesson without letting it become SRS BSNS. 

As per the empowered female tendency to gravitate towards idiotic men with dulled senses, so too does the f'male art culture prefer to select for those who incorporate apathy into their aesthetic. The only way to rise above their low droning social rituals being to regard it as all lies, and put them in their place beneath them. This is fine in some cases, those of the rockstars and rappers and bombastic, front line personalities. But cerebral and more introspective, refined works just like cerebral, introspective refined MEN do not score well with the ladies. In fact, their place is something akin to the artistic friendzone. A low effort acknowledgement of the value they cannot see, done in a very procedural and lifeless manner which if taken seriously will unfold a great abyss of stagnation and depression.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this description. I have watched music scenes be completely destroyed by women and trannies. It is absolutely imperative that right-wingers create alternative scenes. It's fertile ground. All existing scenes have already been so thoroughly rotted through that it will take very little force to make them give way. The dissident right literary sphere is the only positive development in this direction that I can think of, even if a lot of its output is mediocre (is Steelstorm any good?). While something like that is quite able to thrive online, other things will necessitate gathering in real life. This is certainly the case for music, which is a large part of the reason that there has been such left-wing dominance in music over the past two decades or so. I pray every day that people will start to leave the backwards-facing 80s shit behind. We Must Become the Pitiless Censors of Ourselves came out more than 10 years ago. It has already passed through the mainstream and become passé. New styles must be developed. What we need is racist hipsters. Unapologetic gentrification. Niggers forced out of every neighborhood. Gavin McInnes was able to make quite a large cultural and political impact this way. I realize that it isn't a unique observation in this sphere that ceding the cities is a bad idea, but it's worth reiterating in this context.

a system is failing Wrote:Art is itself a method of higher-frequency communication and the interaction between artist and audience falls within the framework of social interaction, even if it can be quite abstracted.

A while ago I had a conversation with a bunch of left-wing Deleuzean types where someone asked whether art was "for the audience." Amazingly, I was the only one who thought that it was. All of them believed that art was purely a medium for "self-expression" and that the audience was incidental. Explaining that even if it is just for self-expression, there must still be an audience to whom the self is being expressed did not seem to change anyone's mind. But that idea of self-expression is a major problem with the arts these days. It's almost synonymous with the feminization of the arts. Art is no longer for expressing something higher than oneself. Why bother attempting to convey something transcendent? It is now for expressing your self. Just put yourself out there! Art is like sperm. Jack it off everywhere. It's like putting housewives in charge of Michelin Star restaurants.

(04-29-2023, 04:18 PM)Muskox Wrote: [ -> ]It's definitely not a Jewish question, but Wagner's analysis can be generalized and built on quite easily I think. I initially expected it to apply significantly less to American Jews, who are certainly more acculturated than 19th century German Jews, but I was surprised to find how well even some of the finer points applied. There are plenty of exceptions, of course (and there were even in Wagner's time, although I would imagine there are proportionally many more these days). It's more accurately described as a spiritual question.

More generally I think the Jewish problem is the ethnic striver problem. It feels very Jewish since they've been the white man's designated ethnic strivers for over 1000 years.

(04-29-2023, 04:18 PM)Muskox Wrote: [ -> ]

a system is failing Wrote:Art is itself a method of higher-frequency communication and the interaction between artist and audience falls within the framework of social interaction, even if it can be quite abstracted.

A while ago I had a conversation with a bunch of left-wing Deleuzean types where someone asked whether art was "for the audience." Amazingly, I was the only one who thought that it was. All of them believed that art was purely a medium for "self-expression" and that the audience was incidental. Explaining that even if it is just for self-expression, there must still be an audience to whom the self is being expressed did not seem to change anyone's mind. But that idea of self-expression is a major problem with the arts these days. It's almost synonymous with the feminization of the arts. Art is no longer for expressing something higher than oneself. Why bother attempting to convey something transcendent? It is now for expressing your self. Just put yourself out there! Art is like sperm. Jack it off everywhere. It's like putting housewives in charge of Michelin Star restaurants.

Proposing a Distinction between types of art: with Vision, without Vision.

The Telos of art being reduced to some Cathartic outlet I think reduces it to its most primitive origin. I remember this discussion about primitive art being a result of a calorie surplus in primitive man causing a boost in creativity and energy leading him to hop around screaming, art. I think this is the essence of a lot of recent art, a band gets the “creative juices” flowing and starts jamming, they have a song. Yet I do not think Classical Music was made the same way. For the composer of an Opera they hear the symphony of the Heavenly Spheres deep within and are possessed to bridge the gap between Inner Vision and outward reality. That more profound art finds its place deep within the Artist’s Sub-Conscious and must be made real. 

A spontaneity vs a deeper origin. That the Spontaneous creation out of a mood is simply designed to be nice, to be pleasing, yet it is not beautiful. I imagine art of a deeper origin springing forth from the Collective Soul of Humanity, it offers something fundamental to the human condition, it is beautiful. 

I imagine the True Artist and not simply the masterbaiter to walk around in a stupor, a somnambulistic Day-Dream. In their reverie they are entertained with visions and illusions that spring from deep within, seeking through skill to create a physical vessel to hold them. Although talking about the “Audience” in the abstract is daunting, I do think the True Artist is invested in the communicability of their medium. 

I think this is the other difference between Vision vs Visionless Art. For the Masterbaiter The communicability of the medium of catharsis is not really taken for account because it’s just a way to get off, maybe it’s nice and maybe not. I think the True Artist is much more invested in skill, he wants to show the full extent of his vision, to delineate it perfectly.

Quote:“the average citizen likes to compare the dreamer to a madman. The average citizen is right in feeling that he would immediately go mad if, like the artist, the man of religion, the philosopher, he allowed himself to become acquainted with the abyss within him. We may call the abyss the soul of the unconscious of whatever; out of it comes every impulse of our lives. The average citizen has set a watchman between himself and his soul, a consciousness, a morality, a security police, and he recognizes nothing that comes directly from that abyss of the soul before it has been given the watchman’s stamp of approval. The artist’s constant distrust, however, is not directed against the region of the soul but precisely against that border watchman’s authority; the artist secretly comes and goes between this side and that, between the conscious and the unconscious, as though at home in both houses.”

Quote from a Hermann Hesse essay(don’t ask me which one).

Mendelssohns and Schoenbergs don't define todays culture. I would much prefer a culture where such people can shine to the current one, and so would you.

You still see this exact tendency even today, take "PC Music" for instance. Its fodder for homosexuals and trannies, yet (((music journalists))) constantly shill it as the "music of the future." Despite this high praise, any sensitive young man will immediately recognize that it is merely uninspired pastiche of Pop and Electronic subgenres upon first listening. Naturally, the creator of it is the kike son of jewish architect Peter Cook. Even today jews cannot stop infiltrating and subverting Aryan art and music. They are incapable of creating anything new and they can only tear down. Jewish "artists" are obsessed with technical skills because it hides this.

(06-21-2023, 07:24 PM)Mladorossi88 Wrote: [ -> ]You still see this exact tendency even today, take "PC Music" for instance. Its fodder for homosexuals and trannies, yet (((music journalists))) constantly shill it as the "music of the future." Despite this high praise, any sensitive young man will immediately recognize that it is merely uninspired pastiche of Pop and Electronic subgenres upon first listening. Naturally, the creator of it is the kike son of jewish architect Peter Cook. Even today jews cannot stop infiltrating and subverting Aryan art and music. They are incapable of creating anything new and they can only tear down. Jewish "artists" are pedantically obsessed with technical skills because it hides this.

I had to look up what "PC Music" is. I've never heard of any of these people. I thought you meant some obscure genre at first. Why should a record label even exist in the 21st century? The whole thing feels like such a scam that I kind of want to investigate the whole thing. How the hell does music make money in the 21st century? I'll stick to random nobodies I find on youtube.

The arts should have died with the birth of the new world, yet we’re left only with a rotten egg.  Progress, the essence of progression is not in continually, but a necessary movement towards “truth” hidden in the transient forms of stages. Look at Salvador Dali’s works, created on the edge of human sensibilities to complement the Zarathustrian spirit  that wished to escape humanity under a new system of polity. That humanity should no longer be left to the vices of nature but instead transmute it’s feeble limitations towards higher reality.

Look at Nietzsche, look at Jung, they created Hesse Herman. Yet it was also of portent signs of a world gone wrong that we see Hesse Herman denounce the Third Reich. You can see it in his writings beyond some caducity creeping in, the spirit that those men inspired within him had died. Take Steppenwolf, a gaze into the abyss, in the freedom of the creative mind set free arose the danger of insanity, that man had found the limits of his humanity, playing on the liminal stage between sanity and insanity was the artist. 

Quote:“Consciousness is afraid of its own spontaneity because it feels itself to be beyond freedom.” In other words we feel vertigo and anguish before our recognition that nothing in our past or discernible personality insures our following any of our usual patterns of conduct. Their is nothing to prevent consciousness from making a wholly new choice of its way of being. By the means to Ego, consciousness can partially protect itself from freedom so limitless that it threatens the very bounds of personality.

Now take the lowbrow art movement of pop surrealism of the 60’s. It’s all nothing short of mockery, imagination lowered to the level of a play thing. The wall not to be passed but only drawn upon. One is not inspired to transcend limits but mocks anywho would even try. 

Now compare this to a Dali work. Can you understand now? Why art should have died?


Can you understand? Culture Art? We don’t need something new but to retrace our steps. We must from the corpse of a giants fetus spring forth. Man is enslaved, manumission his only salvation. We need to revive the spirit that had once been. We must give birth to the new world that lay stillborn. Surrealism should feel new again. 

Art will continue to rot until we can make again Fascisms. Until our nations are once more like hungry animals clawing at the world. Look at the Anime Terror in Resonance, a deeply metaphorical work about Japan’s castrated state after the war, how it was still a defeated nation. A lion that has been castrated can no longer grow a mane. We need the imperialistic spirit, we need violence and war but with conquest. We don’t need Vietnam or Afghanistan, senseless wars. We need to conquer other nations and know we pillage them to increase our wealth. A things that does not grow dies and rots.

Art must reflect reality and reality must imitate art. All of our art is rotting because we live in a rotting world of complacent cattle sustaining themselves off the corpse of the Third Reich. We must once more pursue progress, art will reflect this. 

Actually what ^ is describing is the victory of lower men over higher men and not necessarily a need for fascism. That humanity has been reduced to a state of consumption and decadence is now to say it was perverts but only returned to a masterless state without nature. Lowbrow art vs Dali shows lack of visions VS Vision. Dali saw something on the horizon and reflects this, but he also wants to see something on the horizon and thus manifests it. The heart laid bare that becomes or wishes to become reality. Just because the Lowbrow artist can do something similar doesn’t mean they should be accepted as the same type of being as Dali. Forget Humanity.

Art is a matter of individual. The most we can do is free the individual from the chains of society. But how far should they be freed? Art for art without audience? Yet art for entertaining the masses is the most Banal and insipid. Were does the correct form of art exist? Rather what is arts connection to society? Tv YouTube TikTok for niggers? Smut porno books for women? What type of art is for Sensitive Young Men? That’s the only type of art that matters. An art that compliments the vitality of youth, but a youth of higher standard. Of future conquers and princes.

(07-17-2023, 03:22 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]What type of art is for Sensitive Young Men? That’s the only type of art that matters. An art that compliments the vitality of youth, but a youth of higher standard. Of future conquers and princes.

"Neo-Brekerism" 

Seriously, though, the question of art and the Right is one that has come up a lot in the past year or two, but it seems that many fail to address a fundamental obstacle to the creation of genuinely great art by our side - lack of talent and the tendency to "force" the creation of art. 

If you look back at "RW Twitter" in 2021-2022, there was a period where they were trying to force the creation of RW art despite a lack of talent. The end result of this was a bunch of mediocre, uninspiring art with the occasional decent piece. Sure, some of the people who entered the art competition(s) they held had technical skill, but nothing anyone drew, painted, or wrote really stuck out as exceptionally good or particularly inspiring even amongst those that performed best. Why did this happen? 

Because there were no exceptionally talented individuals in the competition, and due to the extremely artificial desire for good RW art, the judges chose the best works they saw (which as mentioned above was nothing special) and paraded it around, pretending that it was all really wonderful, groundbreaking stuff. Many, however, saw right through this and recognized it for what it was - pure contrivance. 

This isn`t to say there are no exceptionally talented artists who align with us politically or that we will never fix the issue, but it is to say that we are trying to force something that is supposed to happen naturally as a product of the artistic genius of a Sensitive Young Man. While we can continue to stress the importance of RW art, it shouldn`t become an all-consuming obsession, as all we can really hope to do is use the emphasis we do place on the creation of art for our side to prompt an individual to create such art on his own accord; forcing it by convincing every racist with Twitter account to make art is unlikely to yield anything truly great or groundbreaking. Perhaps I`m being too cynical, though, and I do hope to be proven wrong.