Tag urself. I’m MOCKS THE CONCEPT OF VALUES
https://twitter.com/oldbooksguy/status/1695775948569018481?t=b5YxtrzSkxNBP659ywCYyg&s=19
Tag urself. I’m MOCKS THE CONCEPT OF VALUES
https://twitter.com/oldbooksguy/status/1695775948569018481?t=b5YxtrzSkxNBP659ywCYyg&s=19
One could argue that great art has to have some level of creativity. And thus by deffinition cant be reactionary.
Even if a reactionary makes good art. The art has to have creativity in that sense the art is no longer reactionary.
Dali is by all accounts a pretty good artist and he was reactionary as they come
Dali was pretty reactionary but there was much worse
Dali was outspoken in his love of Hitler. You don’t really get more reactionary than being a fan of Hitler
It was like some weird erotic fixation, wasn’t it?
Yes. But the art is very creative. He clearly has a positive vission not in the sense that its moraly good but in the sense that it adds something. So the art its not reactionary even if the artist is. Same with the campbellians. Reactionary art is that wothout a positive vission. Like hotel paintings. Or a lot of current literature. Its empty. And it correlates a lot with the left column
feels weird to define reactionary not as being counter revolutionary but as being uncreative.