>>4445526>The very virtue of something being enjoyable makes it worthwhileLiteral hedonist.
>No, you can't bring things objectively bad for human psychology into thisExcept discordant and degenerate art that runs counter to natural and objective aesthetic principles CAN be brought into this. This is a class that covers everything from schizophrenic nonsense in modern art, to literal autistic bugmen working in architecture, to where most of it actually exists - pop "art" and *government propaganda*. Discordant and degenerate DO have a valid place in art, as prior to catharsis, but their application sans catharsis serves to increase anxiety and communicate inherently negative and self destructive ideas. There is a reason propaganda, for instance, is always so fucking ugly. A lot of street photography can always go here... and there's some "art" photography that is just clearly propaganda. enemy group/enemy idea = ugly and gross to look at is an old one that won't die because: aesthetics aren't subjective, and it fuckin' works. If you call it thought provoking and brave it doesn't actually... stop being what it is.
>DRUGS: because those are not purely enjoyable in the same way as enjoying somebody's art because it appeals to your aesthetic sensibilities.Actually drugs dont fit this like you want them to because drugs are by definition a medicine. A medicine does make you feel better, but it's not worthwhile unless it is part of a therapy to eliminate what's making you feel worse.
Shitty art on the other hand can be part of what makes you feel worse, long term, by embedding associations in your ape brain by using and abusing the laws of aesthetics
Much like architecture is used to blunt affects and demoralize captives
And propaganda is used to demonize enemies
You have no idea how old and how prevalent degenerate art is and probably thought I was just shitting on anything that isn't neoclassical.
