/lit/ - Literature

>>5661487
>artfulness
The other anon was using the term to describe some inherent essence he couldn't describe, I asked him a couple of time to define what artfull meant to him since it fails to work with mechanic constructions.

>if an artist says is art it's art
Not really, that's your general knee jerk post 50's rejection of institutions speaking, it doesn't work like that. If no one recognizes your work you might as well had stayed home.

>dialogue artist/audience
Well, you are moving towards the beginning of post-structuralism, congratulations. The idea of the full circuit being key to the artistic experience appears first in the Frankfurt school but it took a few decades for the reception to have a higher value than the artist or the work. That's the thinking behind a lot of Rotko and that stuff, it doesn't matter the complexity of the work or stuff like that, if it generates awe then it succeeded (and let me tell you that those huge things Pollock did really got you)

But you are paying a lot of attention to the general public, and that's fine, but in some cases it diminishes more complex stuff. To put a /lit/ example is like people reading lolita and saying that it was a story about a pedophile who was really mad, a lot of people fail to connect with Nabokov's prose, but the specialized public appreciates it. You can't assume that the popular consensus is the only thing that matters or you'll never have works that progress beyond the surface level.
It's sort of the problem with modern philosophers like Derrida (and the ones that appeared the 30 years after him aren't much different), you need a lot of background to understand them and people say they are obscurantists on porpoise, but it's the only way to move ahead of certain topics.

>>5661750
Don't be like that!
You know that list includes many authors that don't really matter to make it look harder.
>Plato
>Aristotle
>Hume
Most people read them in HS, only a small part of their works matter in this case and compared with posterior people they are perfect to be read as a brake.

>Locke
>Beckett
>Russell
I'm not saying don't read them, but they aren't vital.

>Stirner
lol

>Lacan
>Foucault
>Deluze
>Derrida
How are they their own background? They are the point of the previous authors and you don't need to read them all now before you turn 25 or you'll never get them, people study them well after having their PhD

Also
>Foucault
>Barthes
They are pretty open to new readers, you could grab them with a very basic philosophy understanding.

>>5646468
I really don't know how it works with tourists, but if you really play football as well as you say you do you'd make some great friends around here. I always envied how people bonded through football, it doesn't compare with your american elitist sports. I've heard that in Brazil the boding is even greater, but still, it goes beyond class and ideology here.

If you happen to train your spanish enough, check this two writers:
>Mujica Lainez
He's the local Nabokov, he can write a chapter about a single person without using the same words to reference him at any time.
>Abelardo Castillo
He get less love but he's straight to the guts and still his prose is as complex as it gets. "El que tiene sed" (the one who is thirsty) is a recount of his time as a heavy alcoholic and it's as beautiful as it's horrible. His short stories are great too.

Chile is cool for what I've heard, people are absurdly nice after being abused for decades of dictatorships. I haven't met a single chilean who I wouldn't consider a bro, even the ones trying to be edgy.

>wine
It's a tricky thing, our best wine is reserved to be sold around the world. If you go to Mendoza or any other wine producing province take a guided visit to a big shot winery and you'll get a sample of international level wine. It was pretty much the only thing my dad liked about living there.

>>5646493
I know, right?
I just love the idea that I get stuff that chauvinist elitists fail to notice. Each time I hear someone taking news at face value I get a boner and it all gets so hard to manage!

>>5646459
I lived for two years without a mirror in my house and I get more than enough abuse from 4chan as it is, I really don't need recognition or rejection from lovely anons [and a cute guy clearly has the hots for me so I don't really care ;^ ) ]

>>5630933
You don't play with your hair while you read in public? Next you'll tell me that you don't need the free hand to ask people to not disturb you asking you out while you read in the bus.

Just like with everything you do to attract the opposite sex: If you do it right it will be enjoyd and if you do it wrong you'll be a creep.
The same girl will drool over a fit guy or get creeped out at the muscle monster depending on how he behaves. There are no absolute unviersal characterisitcs that make your poem perfect, it depends on the reader and its mood; so if you know that a certain person will apreciate a certain type of production, and you succeed in making a quality production, it will work. It won't if
>she doesn't care about literary productions
>she isn't aware of your existence
>she isn't aware at all of your interest in her
>your work is shit
>your work suggests that you have unhealthy interest in something she doesn't like (i.e. she hates her feet and you dedicate a third of the poem to it, she'll get creeped out; she loves her hair and you dedicate a third of the poem to it, she'll feel you get her appeal)

>>5619243
Sort of this, too. People are more complex than some dating sim where each action has a resolute reaction.

>>5505082
I sort of second this. I'd like, and it seems to be the way it's taken, if this is a compendium of 4chan philosophy. From trolley (chap 3) to stirner (i'm sure it's somewhere), from tin foil hats (chap 12) to starting with the greeks (chap10). I think it's better that way than pseudo phil 101

>>5469830
Most of us first crossdressed with our mother's or sister's clothes, it's just easier.

Saging and this thread should be deleted.