6 ms·

What an insanely beautiful model. It makes me happy to think that humans find the time to do things that have no value beyond their beauty and the pleasure they

What an insanely beautiful model. It makes me happy to think that humans find the time to do things that have no value beyond their beauty and the pleasure they give to people who work on them.

airstrike 6y ago
Second time I link to this video this month, but Sir Roger Scruton has a truly impactful message on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc Can't find one without Portuguese subtitles, so hope that's OK
- RodgerTheGreat 6y ago
  Scruton seems primarily preoccupied with dour gatekeeping over what should be considered beautiful or what should be aspired to, as though beauty were some objectively measurable quantity, and anything he deems "ugly" was deliberately crafted to annoy him.
  - igammarays 6y ago
    No! He is defending the impetus of artists to use beauty as a motivator for their works. He is not diminishing the subjective variations in different cultural beauties, or claiming only one kind of beauty exists. The problem is that modern Western art no longer considers beauty itself a motivator. And that’s a problem because beautific recognition is a deeply human need.
    - bosswipe 6y ago
      That's also a bad point, there's more beautiful art being created today than ever. But many other artists have different motivations. If Scruton is saying that only beautiful art should be produced than "dour gatekeeping" seems appropriate.
      - igammarays 6y ago
        > there's more beautiful art being created today than ever. Except there’s not. Where is the Notre Dame of our time? The Mozart (who was well recognized in his time)? Who can be compared in our time to the sheer talent of Michelangelo? Who still produces ballets like Swan Lake? Yes, we have beautiful art in our time, but you have to be blind to not see the difference in the sheer majesty and scale of pre modern Western art. It’s exponentially better.
        BolexNOLA 6y ago
        I don’t know how you could possibly objectively claim that pre-modern western art is “exponentially better.” Are The Beatles not as significant as Mozart?
        heisbsissi 6y ago
        If you read his comments, you can definitely see why he can make lousy comparisons like that. He's miserable, looks up to murdering thugs, thinks all women are money thirsty whores. Is it any surprise that he would think the past is best regardless of anything you might point out. Incel culture is strong here too, weird how that dang guy does nothing about that while being a near fascist about supposed policy violations.
        corty 6y ago
        Ultimately, it is up to the eye or ear of the beholder: I neither like the Beatles nor Mozart. Give me some Polka and I'm happy. While there may be differences in skill of the composers and musicians, that is largely irrelevant. Art only is if it is appreciated. Complexity and skill without any appreciable quality is busywork. However, appreciation of the masses comes with hitting the average taste.
        BolexNOLA 6y ago
        I don’t think an ability to hit the lowest common denominator is necessarily an indicator of artistic value. What is considered “high art” or “refined and complex” is often partially a function of class distinctions and access. The Beatles could’ve been treated like a symphony in a different context, as silly as that may sound. Video games come to mind. There are some indie games that are, quite frankly, beautiful works of art. Outer Wilds comes to mind, as does Celeste.
- pcf 6y ago
  Here it is without subtitles: https://www.bitchute.com/video/tGHVq8p2kSpq/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/tGHVq8p2kSpq/
- thih9 6y ago
  Is there a summary or could someone summarise the message for those who cannot watch the video at the moment?
  - portroyal 6y ago
    This is the summary on the bitchute link: Prof. Roger Scruton presents a provocative essay on the importance of beauty in the arts and in our lives. In the 20th century, Scruton argues, art, architecture and music turned their backs on beauty, making a cult of ugliness and leading us into a spiritual desert. Using the thoughts of philosophers from Plato to Kant, and by talking to artists Michael Craig-Martin and Alexander Stoddart, Scruton analyses where art went wrong and presents his own impassioned case for restoring beauty to its traditional position at the center of our civilization.
danonino 6y ago
Uh-oh, I'm amazed we pay tribute to such meaningless things...
- infinite8s 6y ago
  Who defines meaning?
- dmos62 6y ago
  Do you think this is meaningless to the author?

What an insanely beautiful model. It makes me happy to think that humans find the time to do things that have no value beyond their beauty and the pleasure they give to people who work on them.

airstrike 6y ago

Second time I link to this video this month, but Sir Roger Scruton has a truly impactful message on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc Can't find one without Portuguese subtitles, so hope that's OK

RodgerTheGreat 6y ago
Scruton seems primarily preoccupied with dour gatekeeping over what should be considered beautiful or what should be aspired to, as though beauty were some objectively measurable quantity, and anything he deems "ugly" was deliberately crafted to annoy him.
- igammarays 6y ago
  No! He is defending the impetus of artists to use beauty as a motivator for their works. He is not diminishing the subjective variations in different cultural beauties, or claiming only one kind of beauty exists. The problem is that modern Western art no longer considers beauty itself a motivator. And that’s a problem because beautific recognition is a deeply human need.
  - bosswipe 6y ago
    That's also a bad point, there's more beautiful art being created today than ever. But many other artists have different motivations. If Scruton is saying that only beautiful art should be produced than "dour gatekeeping" seems appropriate.
    - igammarays 6y ago
      > there's more beautiful art being created today than ever. Except there’s not. Where is the Notre Dame of our time? The Mozart (who was well recognized in his time)? Who can be compared in our time to the sheer talent of Michelangelo? Who still produces ballets like Swan Lake? Yes, we have beautiful art in our time, but you have to be blind to not see the difference in the sheer majesty and scale of pre modern Western art. It’s exponentially better.
      - BolexNOLA 6y ago
        I don’t know how you could possibly objectively claim that pre-modern western art is “exponentially better.” Are The Beatles not as significant as Mozart?
        heisbsissi 6y ago
        If you read his comments, you can definitely see why he can make lousy comparisons like that. He's miserable, looks up to murdering thugs, thinks all women are money thirsty whores. Is it any surprise that he would think the past is best regardless of anything you might point out. Incel culture is strong here too, weird how that dang guy does nothing about that while being a near fascist about supposed policy violations.
        corty 6y ago
        Ultimately, it is up to the eye or ear of the beholder: I neither like the Beatles nor Mozart. Give me some Polka and I'm happy. While there may be differences in skill of the composers and musicians, that is largely irrelevant. Art only is if it is appreciated. Complexity and skill without any appreciable quality is busywork. However, appreciation of the masses comes with hitting the average taste.
        BolexNOLA 6y ago
        I don’t think an ability to hit the lowest common denominator is necessarily an indicator of artistic value. What is considered “high art” or “refined and complex” is often partially a function of class distinctions and access. The Beatles could’ve been treated like a symphony in a different context, as silly as that may sound. Video games come to mind. There are some indie games that are, quite frankly, beautiful works of art. Outer Wilds comes to mind, as does Celeste.
pcf 6y ago
Here it is without subtitles: https://www.bitchute.com/video/tGHVq8p2kSpq/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/tGHVq8p2kSpq/
thih9 6y ago
Is there a summary or could someone summarise the message for those who cannot watch the video at the moment?
- portroyal 6y ago
  This is the summary on the bitchute link: Prof. Roger Scruton presents a provocative essay on the importance of beauty in the arts and in our lives. In the 20th century, Scruton argues, art, architecture and music turned their backs on beauty, making a cult of ugliness and leading us into a spiritual desert. Using the thoughts of philosophers from Plato to Kant, and by talking to artists Michael Craig-Martin and Alexander Stoddart, Scruton analyses where art went wrong and presents his own impassioned case for restoring beauty to its traditional position at the center of our civilization.

danonino 6y ago

Uh-oh, I'm amazed we pay tribute to such meaningless things...

infinite8s 6y ago
Who defines meaning?
dmos62 6y ago
Do you think this is meaningless to the author?