/lit/ - Literature

>>22558346
Because of my activity I'm a phenomanally good visual person. Despite this, actually, you couldn't pick a worse board for this kind of posting.
It's probable that people with germanic languages and the such, coupled with a really low cultural environment makes it so that you won't understant where I'm coming from. But reading and using your imagination is really counteresthetic. 95% of the "sacred" "transcendental" "esthetic" value of literature is in its style, flowing, evocative and poetic structure. Imagination is always bland, and in the most authoritative media, where the writer among all artists is the one whose vision is hardest to evade, this 5% of agency that imagination gives ruins a lot of the deep human contact in literature. Well anyways just check Hegel's list on what goes from the most terrestrial to the most ethereal form of art.
nowadays you have cinema and such, it's also the same, where styles matters more than scenario or structure or anything.
It's all about the sacred, transcendental. And You can't see those with your eyes. Even painters came to this conclusion.
Look at Rothko: still probably the most sacred painter

>>17708744
Why would I even give that painting the time of the day when Caravaggio exists? I'm glad you want art to stay the same for all eternity (and luckily for you, some people also do, which means you'll never stop seeing revivalist shlock like that), personally I'd like to see something different. The good thing is that there's no one deciding what art you should make for you now, so you're essentially complaining about nothing, since the art you like is still being made. You're just mad you don't get modern art and can't stand people enjoying something you can understand. Pathetic.