/lit/ - Literature

>>13470127
>They show greed, indifference, despair, destruction, desecration, humiliation, dehumanization, depersonalization, and so on.
Or maybe you're just projecting those things into the photos? That seems likely from where I'm standing.

>And they show this without insight, without meaningful commentary, without hope, without adequate judgement, without value, without virtue.
There is insight. There is meaningful commentary. There is value. There is even hope — but all of these things portray and support a world that you do not welcome.

>These "artists" simply adjust the colors to be seductive, and then you spend how much time looking at, saving, reflecting on what? A wasteland? A hellscape? a cage? You have become so desensitized that you can no longer look at the world as it is. You can no longer see things clearly.
What does it mean to look at the world "as it is" or "clearly," and how does that relate to aesthetics?

>Your mind is a garden, and you are planting weeds.
We have been living in the modern urban landscape for decades now and cultures continue to thrive, new subcultures continue to emerge, and new artistic endeavors continue to be taken. You dismiss them all because you don't welcome what they are about, but they still exist, and the people surrounding them are still thriving, being creative, and enjoying themselves.