>>7229187 It certainly seems odd from an evolutionary standpoint. Thinking about the way our conscience could have developed, it seems so peculiar that we've latched onto these specific aesthetic qualities, and that a by-product of intelligence would eventually constitute a dislike of self-awareness. I know it could have been anything else, maybe squares are the hottest thing on the other side of the Milky Way, but our innate values, or at least shared ones, strike me as things of beauty in themselves; love; honour; courage; the curves of a woman; they all appear to poignant to be anything but purposeful, maybe not by a Creator God, but at least a mathematical universal.
Anyway, I think existential despair would be the most natural product of our world.
>>7229207 >>7229211 >>7229217 >>7229221 His eyes show a very stylized sense of horror, and that's why it's superficial, exaggerated, almost empty, and totally kitsch. /lit/ has no sense for art whatsoever, and you guys just like crap that's supposed to be great, like this painting or Bouguereau.
Just compare his eyes to that of some Rembrandt figure, for God's sake. There's no question on which one is great art and which one is not.
If you can describe the feeling in less than a thousand words, it's kitsch. Simple as that. In this case, a few words like 'shock' and 'horror' are enough. In Mona Lisa's case, no words can describe it, and that's why it's great.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.