/lit/ - Literature

>>9051752
>>9052076

point 2: i would say that this self-conscious rejection of reactionary aesthetics/romanticism is further linked to a deep tradition of anti-intellectualism in the united states.
to summarize a fantastic history written by hofstadter (see: "anti-intellectualism in the american tradition"), intellectuals and artists were an alienated and isolated group in the US 19th century. it was only after the genteelers (emerson, the James, Ryle, etc.) and the turn of the 20th century--lets say from 1890 to 1920--that american political culture began to embrace intellectuals in the form of "expert knowledge"--see the lippmann/dewey debate of the 1920s for a good example of the origins of this. the new deal escalated america's political commitment and use of experts, so the alienation intellectuals and experts felt in the 19th and early 20th centuries began to dissolve by the mid-2oth century when accredited institutions began to open their doors to intellectuals and artists. but this stabilization of the role of the artist had the ironic consequence of bringing to light the problem of alienation: just around the time when artists and intellectuals began to be recognized by the american public, those very same artists and intellectuals began to cling to their status as "alienated, starving artists" as never before. so, as soon as the long history of american anti-intellectualism began to where off, intellectuals, so used to their status as marginalized and misunderstood aesthetes, did not full embrace this new popularity.
so while in europe you see art and politics intersecting very self-consciously ever since louis XIV employed le brun, america has witnessed an incredibly vexed relation develop between its artistic class (which took form and grew exponentially in the post-war period) and its ruling elite.

so, point 2: american intelligentsia/artists today still have an ambiguous relation to their own identities as intellgentsia/artists. in america, art and power has never found a way to meet on acceptable common ground--and the popularization of art in the mid-20th century had the impact of further fracturing the identities and relations that produced and consumed that art.

look at the celebrity today, for instance. this is a good example of where "art" and "politics" now stand: silly, fractured speeches without much content; ridiculous actors who confuse a nation's appreciation for their films for an appreciation of their politics; a hollowed out form of political art totally subsumed under the capitalist system. but whatever, i benefit, so i'm ok with this.

thoughts?

>>9035444
I don't know about 'rescue' I mean, I've never actually saved someone from like a burning building or whatever. But I've helped a couple of friends with depression and suicidal thoughts and stuff like that, I mean the least I could ever do for them is to just be there for them. I don't know if it's ever worked or if they were just pretending they were happier for my own sake. But I keep on trying, regardless. I'm probably more annoying than helpful, truthfully.

>>8939708

unfortunately that is the only bookcase i have that offers business/advertising-related material. did you mean other books?--if so, what subject interests you? i teach a number of subjects, ranging from american history to political theory to jurisprudence to military strategy, etc., and i have a good sense of whats worth reading in a number of sub-disciplines, so if its a particular "list" you're looking for, let me know and i can recommend whatever, if you're interested