I cannot find anything that I disagree with. For practical purposes, should the reactionary right seriously attempt to train young artists? Because I see a lot of people talking about how good the ancient greek art is, but I don't see potential to do anything other than replicate it at best, and to copy what has already been done, at best a second watered down renaissance, I just don't see potential to make something new and better or really originality. This comes back to philosophy, I really only see ideas regurgitated from Italian Elite Theory, and other 19th century sources, nothing that truly equals it. That's the blackpill. But I guess we just have to do good enough, and as you said, beating corporate sterilised crap today isn't hard.
I guess again, this comes back to the idea that the left fears beauty, and why they have disdain for men going to the gym. Because the don't want the right to have superior asthetics, and it is this reason that has resulted in young men turning away from the left, and once young men do in large enough numbers, I hope to God young women follow and then that's a path to victory.
Still though, even from a rational perspective looking back at my experiences and arguments with lefties, I still want to think that I can seed doubt, just a little so that the dam eventually cracks, but it never seems to work. I remember seeing a video by the distributist that said we should attempt this approach and simply ask questions to sow doubt. Do you think that approach is still worthwhile, and at some point when someone is close enough in worldview, do you then attempt debate? At what point is it useful to develop arguments and engage with others. Because even when I argue with someone else, and I cannot break them, convincing bystanders with arguments is still possible. Even though you will never convince commies, if a neutral is watching, you can still potentially sway them.
The right does not control institutions. It is really useless to make proper art if you don’t control the institutions that distribute art and propagandize it to the masses.
If a young man set himself the task of being a modern Michelangelo, even if he achieved his goal he would not be popularized by the art galleries and buyers and sellers and the overarching institutions that control and distribute art. And so his effort would be, pragmatically, moot.
See: Arno Breker
The aesthetic victory of the right today is achieved today by edits, intellectual honesty, physical beauty, and a beautiful mind and spirit which begets a beautiful harmonious life. You win by living well.
Like Trump fist pumping the air after getting shot—the right can only achieve aesthetic victory through virality, and cannot merely rely on an institution spreading their work with credentialism and status.
Training our own Arno Brekers will come in due time, when we control the institutions and can actually reward and incentivize and popularize them.
The question always comes back to control. It seems, according to you that we cannot make proper art if we cannot distribute the art, but we cannot achieve control over institutions of distribution without quality art to sway people to get the control in the first place. So then we are relegated to relying on feel-good moments and iconic images that are decentralised. Again, with the invention of the internet, destroying the institutional monopoly on the spread of information, is it not unreasonable to suggest the same thing for art? But iconic moments are not the same as great art, they are a bridge between cold logical cogs that have no pathos, and this powerful art. But with the uglification of the Left, it could be possible to win over the youth with this aesthetic, still a downgrade from where we should be, but in the right time, and with the internet, we aren't in the same trap as the 20th century. That is the main point being discussed. Still, I think that in the long-term, we should focus on great art, as even if we cannot distribute it now, good art is timeless, and it might wield great power and help us decades from now, we don't know.
The question, not only in general but also for us, is also "What is great art?". It might sound trite and basic but it's quite important. At least to me it's not exclusively subject matter and style. Although very rarely, I do sometimes find more artistic merit in some abstract/modern paintings than many attempting a more "traditional" style.
Regarding your former point of where to go, well I think that if there is a (progressive in our sense) way (human potential for novely is not necessarily endless) then we'll probably only be able to recognize it afterwards. It might also be based on a constant feedback loop of cultural development and artistic promotion. And for that to happen we need the necessary infrastructure and networks. One aspect where we're better situated today than some years ago.
Of course any recreation of the classics feels misplaced or shallow in comparison as it's lacking its cultural and temporal context. Nevertheless one can maybe take it as the basis. Much like how I think that our artistic training should emulate general, proven styles and techniques. Students can then veer off into their own path later. And perhaps someone will stumble on something great and new. (Maybe though our artistic and even civilizational future will lie in our past as the current situation becomes unsustainable - who really knows with the long term challenges ahead).
Hah, it sounds as if you seek a standard, in this case for art. We’ll have to crawl out of the postmodern miasma and revive objectivity before we have such a standard.
At least a standard for ourselves, yes. A corpus of works, styles, etc. and a set of principles that guide the development. Though this is obviously easier said than done. As I said I would not exclude all abstract pieces for example. Some are able to convey inherently uncertain or rather necessarily formless feelings and sentiments more directly than many (though not all) non-abstract ones. Where to draw the line is therefore qutie difficult to work out.
I think you hit a very important core regarding emotionality in political discourse and development. It also reminds me of the discussion surrounding the heritability of political leanings. I however would disagree slightly in so far as there are some issues I believe one (or maybe just some) can be convinced on. Though of course this requires one to not be too invested in them and for them to not be strongly associated with other opinion clusters. Therefore they probably lack quite a bit of importance making the distinction at least practically moot.
On a personal note: Back in school I wish we had actual debate clubs where one could have engaged in it regularly. We only held debates now and then but it was always fun. You connecting your experiences with debate (especially arguing in favor of opinions one doesn't hold) with the topic of emotionality in politics makes me think of the old Trivium. That part of education might have really opened more people up to this idea or reality compared to today.
I think we need to adopt futurism as our art style it represents both the future in the past reactionary modernism two books I recommend you read Jonathan Bowden
This is a brilliant essay. I must say, this is quite a good analysis.
It I think however, that it goes deeper than even this. The aesthetics stem from core values, which a person has build up to be a navigating principle.
This could explain why telling an argument seems like running against a wall: it might be correct, what you are saying, but it does not touch the core of one's belief.
I am writing something in this direction currently. Would it be ok for you, if I quoted you?
I cannot find anything that I disagree with. For practical purposes, should the reactionary right seriously attempt to train young artists? Because I see a lot of people talking about how good the ancient greek art is, but I don't see potential to do anything other than replicate it at best, and to copy what has already been done, at best a second watered down renaissance, I just don't see potential to make something new and better or really originality. This comes back to philosophy, I really only see ideas regurgitated from Italian Elite Theory, and other 19th century sources, nothing that truly equals it. That's the blackpill. But I guess we just have to do good enough, and as you said, beating corporate sterilised crap today isn't hard.
I guess again, this comes back to the idea that the left fears beauty, and why they have disdain for men going to the gym. Because the don't want the right to have superior asthetics, and it is this reason that has resulted in young men turning away from the left, and once young men do in large enough numbers, I hope to God young women follow and then that's a path to victory.
Still though, even from a rational perspective looking back at my experiences and arguments with lefties, I still want to think that I can seed doubt, just a little so that the dam eventually cracks, but it never seems to work. I remember seeing a video by the distributist that said we should attempt this approach and simply ask questions to sow doubt. Do you think that approach is still worthwhile, and at some point when someone is close enough in worldview, do you then attempt debate? At what point is it useful to develop arguments and engage with others. Because even when I argue with someone else, and I cannot break them, convincing bystanders with arguments is still possible. Even though you will never convince commies, if a neutral is watching, you can still potentially sway them.
Fascinating stuff as usual.
The right does not control institutions. It is really useless to make proper art if you don’t control the institutions that distribute art and propagandize it to the masses.
If a young man set himself the task of being a modern Michelangelo, even if he achieved his goal he would not be popularized by the art galleries and buyers and sellers and the overarching institutions that control and distribute art. And so his effort would be, pragmatically, moot.
See: Arno Breker
The aesthetic victory of the right today is achieved today by edits, intellectual honesty, physical beauty, and a beautiful mind and spirit which begets a beautiful harmonious life. You win by living well.
Like Trump fist pumping the air after getting shot—the right can only achieve aesthetic victory through virality, and cannot merely rely on an institution spreading their work with credentialism and status.
Training our own Arno Brekers will come in due time, when we control the institutions and can actually reward and incentivize and popularize them.
The question always comes back to control. It seems, according to you that we cannot make proper art if we cannot distribute the art, but we cannot achieve control over institutions of distribution without quality art to sway people to get the control in the first place. So then we are relegated to relying on feel-good moments and iconic images that are decentralised. Again, with the invention of the internet, destroying the institutional monopoly on the spread of information, is it not unreasonable to suggest the same thing for art? But iconic moments are not the same as great art, they are a bridge between cold logical cogs that have no pathos, and this powerful art. But with the uglification of the Left, it could be possible to win over the youth with this aesthetic, still a downgrade from where we should be, but in the right time, and with the internet, we aren't in the same trap as the 20th century. That is the main point being discussed. Still, I think that in the long-term, we should focus on great art, as even if we cannot distribute it now, good art is timeless, and it might wield great power and help us decades from now, we don't know.
The question, not only in general but also for us, is also "What is great art?". It might sound trite and basic but it's quite important. At least to me it's not exclusively subject matter and style. Although very rarely, I do sometimes find more artistic merit in some abstract/modern paintings than many attempting a more "traditional" style.
Regarding your former point of where to go, well I think that if there is a (progressive in our sense) way (human potential for novely is not necessarily endless) then we'll probably only be able to recognize it afterwards. It might also be based on a constant feedback loop of cultural development and artistic promotion. And for that to happen we need the necessary infrastructure and networks. One aspect where we're better situated today than some years ago.
Of course any recreation of the classics feels misplaced or shallow in comparison as it's lacking its cultural and temporal context. Nevertheless one can maybe take it as the basis. Much like how I think that our artistic training should emulate general, proven styles and techniques. Students can then veer off into their own path later. And perhaps someone will stumble on something great and new. (Maybe though our artistic and even civilizational future will lie in our past as the current situation becomes unsustainable - who really knows with the long term challenges ahead).
Hah, it sounds as if you seek a standard, in this case for art. We’ll have to crawl out of the postmodern miasma and revive objectivity before we have such a standard.
At least a standard for ourselves, yes. A corpus of works, styles, etc. and a set of principles that guide the development. Though this is obviously easier said than done. As I said I would not exclude all abstract pieces for example. Some are able to convey inherently uncertain or rather necessarily formless feelings and sentiments more directly than many (though not all) non-abstract ones. Where to draw the line is therefore qutie difficult to work out.
I think you hit a very important core regarding emotionality in political discourse and development. It also reminds me of the discussion surrounding the heritability of political leanings. I however would disagree slightly in so far as there are some issues I believe one (or maybe just some) can be convinced on. Though of course this requires one to not be too invested in them and for them to not be strongly associated with other opinion clusters. Therefore they probably lack quite a bit of importance making the distinction at least practically moot.
On a personal note: Back in school I wish we had actual debate clubs where one could have engaged in it regularly. We only held debates now and then but it was always fun. You connecting your experiences with debate (especially arguing in favor of opinions one doesn't hold) with the topic of emotionality in politics makes me think of the old Trivium. That part of education might have really opened more people up to this idea or reality compared to today.
I think we need to adopt futurism as our art style it represents both the future in the past reactionary modernism two books I recommend you read Jonathan Bowden
Reactionary Modernism and
This is a brilliant essay. I must say, this is quite a good analysis.
It I think however, that it goes deeper than even this. The aesthetics stem from core values, which a person has build up to be a navigating principle.
This could explain why telling an argument seems like running against a wall: it might be correct, what you are saying, but it does not touch the core of one's belief.
I am writing something in this direction currently. Would it be ok for you, if I quoted you?