/lit/ - Literature

You ask that question as if anyone really cares about these pesudo-Academies we call museums.

"Don't make your protagonist of a different race/sex than yourself unless you have a reason to" might sound like a racist or sexist thing to say but I stand by it

>>5008990
My whole novel is a bout black South Africans and I'm white and not South African, but then again I have a reason for it.

>>5008979

It's not only an issue specific to museums, universities are hugely susceptible to this form of political correctness.

>>5009001

Please, any political correctness present in western universities is always balanced out by the fact that Saudi Arabia still exists as a country.

I dont fucking care, Ill nod and smile but slam poetry is still garbage

>>5009008
Please, no.

>>5009015

Yeah, I know! That, swing dancing, jazz and conscious hip hop have to be the worst aspects of western culture.

>>5009017

You're think of the west as an separate system, when in fact the world is one giant useless-machine

Harold Bloom catches flak because a meritocracy never has, and never can, exist, in literature or in any other institution. It's just an excuse people in power use to elide responsibility for obvious biases. I mean his whole essay on the production of poetry ("The Anxiety of Influence") starts by assuming that female poets don't exist. Whenever women produce art, men have a tendency to ignore it outright (something I'm sure you've seen on this board). And the trouble with that is the people who decide what goes into the museum, what wins the National Book Award, what goes into the Norton's Anthology, are mostly men with this prejudice.

>>5009028
Ah, that ol' misandry. Look sweetie pie, women discriminate against women too. Clean up your own house if first if you're going to start throwing glass stones at ceilings based on sex.

>>5009028
>Whenever women produce art, men have a tendency to ignore it outright

Because it is mostly terrible. Same with minorities. They can't escape their "oppression".

>>5009028
oh booga booga it's all the fault of penises

>>5009028

If a woman painted as well as Van Gogh instead of wasting time doing "guerilla girls" maybe they would en up in the MOMA too.

>>5009054

Instead you get shit like Tracy Emin talking about her period.

>>5009028
Yeah but caring about awards and shit is uber lame normalfaggotry
Bias, especially in awards, is unavoidable unless a computer decides from some mythical objective standards

>>5009040
I'm a man.

This is exactly my point. People read something they feel vaguely threatens their identity and they disregard it immediately. Nothing you said even begins to address my points.

The OP specifically mentioned Harold Bloom, obviously a titan in literary criticism. One of his most famous essays works on the assumption that female poets don't and can't exist. That's a legitimate problem that any thinking person would take objection to. But instead you're constructing tumblr boogey(wo)men you feel you need to combat.

Regarding that image, most such nudes are platonic. They're celebrating the aesthetic beauty of the feminine form that isn't (to their eye) as present in males.

>>5009076
>People read something they feel vaguely threatens their identity and they disregard it immediately.

implying this only applicable to men.

>>5009046
>>5009050
>>5009054

I don't know why I'm surprised. Maybe I should try this differently. Have any of you read Harold Bloom?

>>5008990
If the reason "Because I felt like it" isn't good enough for you, then you should kill yourself. Every human has the same inherent feelings and thoughts, the remaining 5% can be filled in by any halfway decent writer.

>>5009101
>Every human has the same inherent feelings and thoughts

One of the dumbest ideals that has come forth is that everything must have equal-representation.

Such isn't the case. The only representation should be of those qualified enough to enter. As far as I know, art has never stated that it is a factual representation of demographics; so, it has no responsibility to reflect as such.

>>5009028
Man, blah blah blah books or whatever, but hoowee /lit/ doesn't know their shit about not being sexist assholes, let alone being even vaguely educated re: sexism.
How all these dudes replying to you manage to (supposedly) read so much without picking up on like basic shit is crazy talk.

>>5009101
>95% of character personality is the same inherent feelings and thoughts that everyone has

>>5009101

It is a good reason, but not mine. My source material determined it.

>>5009028
Feminists have to think its only the fault of men that they're not getting more representation. Otherwise they'd have no argument for quotas to be filled with feminists (what a coincidence). Because if they were just filled with random women, we'd still see men dominating.

But no, women have no agency or responsibility when it doesn't suit feminists.

>>5009092
http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/

>>5009106

YES thank you!!


People say there is no meritocracy, and not explicitly so, just that of the work that has come before to stand up against. How is this not obvious?

>>5009092
I'm not implying that. I even used gender-neutral people. And you're still avoiding my point. Let me slow this down for you:

The specific topic of the thread is whether or not women are under-represented in literary art or if that's important.

The OP selected Harold Bloom as a poster-boy for male bias, or at least as someone who is frequently criticized for that.

Harold Bloom has an essay called "The Anxiety of Influence."

This essay is about the production of poetry and how the Western canon is comes into being over time.

It argues that female poets don't exist.

This is clearly indicative of a problematic structural bias in literary criticism and how we understand literary art.

I know you haven't read it. I also know it's probably fruitless to debate this on /lit/ since most of you knuckleheads haven't read that much at all. But at least try.

Try to be substantial.

>>5009106

It's like those picture elephants paint, should they be in the MOMA too?

>>5009123

Female poets don't exist in a real way.

>>5009076
I'm not denying that it's not a problem. I'm pointing out a problem in this reasoning:

>Whenever women produce art, men have a tendency to ignore it outright (something I'm sure you've seen on this board). And the trouble with that is the people who decide what goes into the museum, what wins the National Book Award, what goes into the Norton's Anthology, are mostly men with this prejudice.

It's misandry. This is a problem too, and you need to stop erasing people's feelings. Kay thanks bye shit lord.

>>5009127
A very sophisticated opinion, my companion. A ha.

>>5009116
That's not even the argument used.

>>5009132

They do, in the sense that there are women who write poetry, but none on the level of Whitman. So, do they really exist?

>>5009094
I'm reading his essay for the first time. Could you point out where he says that female poets don't exist?

>>5009106
Supposedly rigidly enforced equal representation is not the idea.
The idea is:
There's a massive inequality in representation. Why is that? Logically, either all women are inherently inferior, or there's a bias. We have no evidence of female inferiority re: creative arts, and substantial evidence of a male bias.
Therefore, let's try to figure out what makes that bias happen and get rid of it. Feminists /want/ a meritocracy, but that's not where we're at right now.

>>5009131
How on earth is that misandry I'm providing you with a real life example: Harold Bloom.

Pointing out that a male-dominated institution has an observable tendency to discriminate against women isn't "misandry." How the hell else are you supposed to talk about it?

>>5009131
I'm not that dude, but that's not misandry. We have a cultural bias towards dudes, being brought up within the context of that bias we all to a certain degree naturally accept it. That's not an attack on men, just saying that we're influenced by the values of our culture.

>>5009140
>We have no evidence of female inferiority

Yeah we do, 99% of it is garbage, that would confirm female inferiority in the arts.

>>5009140
>We have no evidence of female inferiority re: creative arts

confirmed for loving "The Vagina Monologues"

>>5009140
We also have evidence men are much more competitive. These studies you're referring to don't measure actual behavior in the real world, but capacity. Capacity doesn't matter a whit to any issue unless you don't exercise it, and when it involves anything limited, such as spaces in a museum, competition gives you an edge capacity along can't account for.

>>5009140

Where are the females who paint like Matisse, or Bacon?

The Patriarchy is natural though no? How did that shit happen fucking everywhere if men arent just better than women?

>>5009138
bump.

>>5009165
Again, I'd argue that can be attributed to a culture that encourages competitiveness, ambition, in men, but submission in women. Obviously, you could reply that it's not culture but biology, but neither of us are close to educated enough to know.

>>5009173

Nobility is natural though no? How did that shit happen fucking everywhere if royals arent just better than commons?

>>5009173
PLease men are pretty shit everywhere you look. So are the women though too.

>>5009138
If you're reading it you should have noticed from page one that the dominant metaphor applied throughout is the Oedipal struggle between sons and fathers. This necessarily excludes any kind of feminine influence in poetry. As Bloom understands it, poetry is de facto male oriented.

If you're interested, Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar have a book called The Madwoman in the Attic. If you can find it, there's a Norton excerpt of it in which the authors specifically respond to Bloom's understanding of poetic production by actually considering how the female poet fits into "the canon."

>>5008976
You know exactly how /lit/ feels about it. What exactly are you trying to start here, a circlejerk?

>>5009182
>poetry is de facto male oriented.

It is.

>>5009178
Id agree, really. The nobility, now they're businessmen or oligarchs or whatever are better than us, thats how they got there

I mean why would everyone be the at the same level, surely some people are better than others
>>5009179
Sure everybody is shit, but why are women oppressed everywhere

>>5009169
>Matisse
>an exemplary painter

Confirmed for retinal pleb.

I play violin in a professional orchestra.

Up until ~5 years ago, we had auditions where the musician was fully visible. 17% of incoming musicians were female.
When we started holding auditions behind a screen to prevent gender bias, 53% of incoming musicians were female.

Get it?

>>5009140

>We have no evidence of female inferiority re: creative arts

care to elaborate? I disagree entirely

Why is /lit/ obsessed with the female condition?

>>5009204
Playing other peoples music is not really the same thing

>>5009188
How?

>>5009204
>Get it?

more females have social anxiety?

muh personal anecdotes don't contribute anything to the argument by the way

>>5009210
Why aren't you? It's not as if any subject is any better than any other subject?

And it's pretty apparent that most of the posters in this thread aren't anyway.

>>5009204
>I play violin in a professional orchestra

Marry me? I'll write poetry as you play :3

>>5009204
>not being able to smell stinky fish queefs from a distance

>>5009223


>It's not as if any subject is any better than any other subject?

except they are, and you dont really think that way either.

>>5009213
In the past few years, we've played a few pieces written by two members of the orchestra.
One of them is a male viola player, a virtuoso-type guy who's been writing music since he was 11 and has compose 100-odd pieces.
The other is a female french horn player. She wrote her first concerto at 13, and we're about to play a symphony by her based on Infinite Jest.

We didn't set out to choose one female and one male composer, they just both happened to be writing excellent music, so we decided to play it.

Get it yet?

>>5008976
the problem with the idea of judging art on its 'merits' is that any valuation of art is totally subjective. Who is to say what art is deserving to be in a museum, and which does not?

I'm sure critics like Harold Bloom might like to think that if they were self-appointed gatekeepers to museums, quotas would not be needed because their taste is so discriminating they can spot any valuable art. But people who think like that either don't understand or don't care that peoples' tastes differ.

So I'm actually in favor of some informal kind of quota - museums should make sure that they have some diversity in the gender and race of its displayed artists.

>>5009242
No i dont get it at all

>>5009220
Everyone auditioning is anxious, they're auditioning for a fucking orchestra. Whether they can control it comes out in the music, not at all visibly. The screen has no effect on that.

Also, it's a near-global trend in orchestras, not just muh anecdote.

>>5009245
If you cared about diversity of taste, you would select for diversity of tastes, not gender or race.

Please learn logic or something manly.

>>5009254

why did you take my first question seriously?

>it's a near-global trend in orchestras

well it's a good thing m/f ratios in orchestras are the best ways to measure female oppression

>>5009253
he's saying that his little pissant orchestra and the fact that girls are shy and have no (figurative) balls is demonstrative of something or other.

>>5009272
That anecdote was about a girl and a guy being represented equally, so i have no idea what hes on about

>>5008976
I don't see what's wrong with that picture. The female form is beautiful.

>>5009245
>Who is to say what art is deserving to be in a museum, and which does not?

whoever selects the art to put in the museum LOL

>>5009254
Then it should be replicable with a one way mirror:

The audition taker is told both sides can't see shit, when actually the judges can.

If the effect holds for the judges being able to see the performer, but the performer not being able to see the judges, sexism may be at fault and social anxiety may be discarded.

If it does not then sexism is not at fault, social anxiety may be, and it was justified as you don't want people choking.

>>5009040

Seriously? I could name dozens of great female poets and authors off the top of my head, and quite a few minority ones too. So could you, I'm betting, if you gave it any thought.

>>5009076
oh snap

>>5009245
>the problem with the idea of judging art on its 'merits' is that any valuation of art is totally subjective.

good point, women have no objective value to art whatsoever. we should probably stop listening to feminists tell us otherwise.

>>5009290
maybe the women get social anxiety because they think they are not getting selected because of discrimination

>>5009306
That would could be discarded, as everyone is told they can't be seen. In any case, saying it's discrimination is unproven conjecture.

Illogical to assume this and institute quotas, as expected of feminists and women.

>>5009290
My man, I said before the screen has NO impact on detectability of anxiety. If you're nervous enough for it to be visible, it WILL fuck with your playing. The judges won't need to see you to tell.

And I can promise, when you're auditioning and have spent months preparing, whether or not you can see the judges will have no noticeable effect on how nervous you are. You're not looking at them when you're auditioning anyway; you're focusing on what you're playing.

The whole point of all this nonsense is that in my orchestra like many others globally, when a truly equal-opportunity playing field was provided, women excelled just as much as men. Hence, gender bias is at fault, not supposed female inferiority.

>>5009245
>the problem with the idea of judging art on its 'merits' is that any valuation of art is totally subjective.


It is to an extent. There is no denying the are things that are shit and things that are great.

>>5009028
>you can't recommend things to a museum
>implying we even know if they look at the creators at the met and not just the works
>saying the meritocracy is a fib

>>5009320
I mean come on dudes, think about it. What makes more sense:
-All women who auditioned, who'd spent at least 15 years studying music (which includes learning how to deal with performance anxiety), and at least 6 months preparing specifically for the audition process, were overwhelmed simply by being able to see the judges, but when not able to see the judges were instantly cured of their anxiety and performed at the level of their anxiety-free male counterparts
-the judges were gender biased

>>5009245
>So I'm actually in favor of some informal kind of quota - museums should make sure that they have some diversity in the gender and race of its displayed artists.


Stay pleb, you probably think a ringtone composer is doing the same thing as Mozart. You aren't being open to different tastes, you just lack a sophisticated palate.

>>5008976

>>5009296
>Seriously? I could name dozens of great female poets and authors off the top of my head, and quite a few minority ones too.

No, good for a female, or good for a minority. Not on par with Blake or Whitman.

>>5009306

well they would be an idiot. with affirmative action so prevalent why would they default to muh discrimination?

>>5009320

you're not actually providing any proof besides your one example? you can't just say "this happens everywhere" and expect everyone to automatically believe you.

>>5009342

She should write her own stankin ass nagger book.

I've said this before in these threads (which are repeated once or twice weakly on this board):

If women want to be recognized for great art, they must produce great art. There are no excuses. Simply produce it. And don't make it about moping over muh oppression. Simply produce good art and it will be recognized.

>>5009355

Have to agree.

>>5009332
>>you can't recommend things to a museum

The word I used was "decide."

>>implying we even know if they look at the creators at the met and not just the works

We do know that. Are you kidding?

>>saying the meritocracy is a fib

If it's not, and what we've got now is really the result of our most meritorious humans, I've got some bad news for the species.

>>5009352
https://www.google.ca/search?q=orchestra+screen+audition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=oNabU6qbIavE8geCs4HoAw

Plenty here

>>5009257

I talked about tastes in my reply because OP set up the question: meritocracy vs. quotas in museums. My point is that you can't possibly have a meritocracy when you've got no firm metrics to look at, and that's the case when it comes to art. So what Harold Bloom considers worthy/unworthy of being in a museum or an anthology or whatever is going to disagree with many.

I'm talking about diversity of perspective, really. Different races and different genders = different perspectives than your typical white male, don't you think? That's why I'm in favor of making sure you have some quota of minorities and women in museums. Having artists from diverse backgrounds displayed is bound to be more enriching.

>>5009355
>weakly

is an obvious typo but is ironically appropriate for the premise of these threads. They are the epitome of weakness. A farmer with no crop doesn't sit in his farmhouse moping about the lack of crops and writing e-mails to the mayor about his lack of crops. He simply grows crops. The whole premise of the thread is absurd and abhorrent.

>>5009342

does she not realize that authors don't usually take the time to specifically point out the race of everyone? does she want them to speak ebonics? or that the point of those genres is to create ideal worlds (it's a joke, calm down)

>>5009320
>Thread about the male gaze
>Feminists argue against it

Rationality on low testosterone, folks.

>>5009369
Still missing the point.
If a farmer has been growing crops for hundreds of years, but has been told to dude just give up the crop growing it's not suitable for you, and has had his crops refused immediately without them being tried because of his supposed unsuitability, and has at times been outright forbidden from growing crops, while all the while his neighbour is growing the same amount and quality of crops as him and is selling all of them with insane ease, he's going to want to figure out what the fuck is up before growing more crops.

>>5009366
>My point is that you can't possibly have a meritocracy when you've got no firm metrics to look at

Your metrics are all the other great works that have come before. If your work pales in comparison, you are not worthy.

>>5009373
The fact that you think "ebonics" is the only way to denote a person of color in a novel speaks volumes as to why these conversations on /lit/ go nowhere.

It's people who have actually thought about something vs. Bill O'Reilly. And Bill O'Reilly. And another Bill O'Reilly.

>>5009385

you're completely ignoring the quality of his crops though

>>5009387
Lmao.

>art isn't appraised subjectively, it's really quite simple
>you just have to meet a subjective unspecified criteria

>>5009380
I'm a man : ^ )
But please, notwithstanding your misuse of the idea of male gaze, tell me your experience with professional orchestra auditions and how being seen influenced you.

Is it sexist to be bored by female writers? I'm not saying that Jane Austen and Virginia Woolf are bad in a technical sense, but damn, their stories are fucking monotonous. Maybe I'm just a closet misogynist but societal expectations/social oppression/social justice are not topics that I relate to or care about.

>>5009385
Your version of the analogy is full of inaccuracies.

>Crops refused immediately
>Assuming male crops are equal to yours
>It's okay to whine about our lack of acceptance
>Implying acceptance by the elite is what matters in the production of great art/crops

Why not just write literary classics? They may not be recognized by the supposed patriarchy, but they will endure and eventually some enlightened male scumbag will read them and promote them and you will be rescued from obscurity. But you'll never know until you actually sow the high quality crops! Right now you're just sitting in the farmhouse whining about your low-quality crop not earning recognition.

>>5009400
Male feminists are like factory owning communists.

Also, if women are being discriminated against, wouldn't it make sense to play behind a curtain so the audience will appreciate the music more? Or just put all the women behind curtains? Like something they can wear?

>>5009392

what else is supposed to denote them besides specifically mentioning their skin colour? which is something I don't even see very often, especially in more modern novels

>>5009385
Except women haven't produced much noteworthy art/science/culture/anything. You've done almost nothing to earn recognition. Why do you expect equality and equal recognition when you've done nothing to merit it?

>>5009173

if nature knows best, you better take off your clothes and flee back to the wilderness

you're talking about human nature, not the natural world. men dominate societies nowadays by disallowing women from doing anything on their own. that doesn't make us better, it makes us assholes playing keep-away

>>5009397
>his neighbour is growing the same amount and quality of crops as him
But regardless, the only support for "women don't art well" is that there have been less women artists historically. Obviously you're not going to argue that women have been oppressed for a sizable chunk of western history, so the argument that it's because of female inferiorty and not an uneven playing field doesn't stand.

The only example provided of an actual gender-bias-free field ITT is my orchestra one, and it proved my point. Give me an example of a verifiably unbiased place where men still dominated women.

>>5009424
Your example is an anecdote.

And I can't think of any field less biased than literature, where it is extremely feasible to write under a pseudonym and hide your identity entirely.

>>5009399

It's unspecified and specified at the same time. I don't see how this is hard to grasp. If your work is on par with the greats you're great, if it's on par with the shit, you're shit.

Real recognize real.

>>5009406

You like what you like. Don't get involved with such games.

>>5008976
>respected critic such as Harold Bloom has been called sexist and racist
I'm aware words don't mean things any more, I read that philosopher too, but, seriously, stop trying for sentences greater than three words in length.

I want feminists to point out an incident where a women created a work of great art, presented it to the public, and had it rejected immediately/ignored on the basis of the author's gender. There is no such example.

>>5009435
>anecdote
see: >>5009363
And come on my man
>women not allowed education for the longest time
>you have to meet a publisher in person
>you're still discouraged from writing
The existence of pseudonyms is far from eliminating bias

>>5009245

quotas are retarded. affirmative action has shown us that

just ditch the old boys' club mentality and judge art as it is

>>5009419

>Or just put all the women behind curtains? Like something they can wear?

hmmmm something like this?

>>5009424
Actually, if social anxiety was causing it, the auditions behind curtains discriminate against men.

Stop thinking only of how women may be affected by decisions.

>>5009406
yes, it's very sexist. all female literature is absolutely equal to that written by men. you can tell because, um, muh orchestra.

>>5009444
Are you ESL?

>>5009424

you're right, I missed that part of your post.

yes, "historically oppressed", not so in the past 50 years. i'll use film as an example since I mostly read older literature. how many good female directors/writers can you think of? the woman who did Cleo from 5 to 7? I can't even think of one other decent woman filmmaker.

>verifiably unbiased place where men still dominated women.

if you're going by the oppression line of thought then you'll find ways to extend that to any occupation or artform no matter what is said.

you're still operating under a fallacy that females weren't represented because of oppression and not because of their lack of skill, when it's most likely a combination of the two. if a group is oppressed then you can't default to another extreme and assume that they'll have unlimited potential once they're free from that oppression.

>>5009331

Right, and I'm not arguing that some doodles I made when I was a kid have the right to hang in a museum alongside a Matisse, or that some kid's emo poems from high school should be studied in lit class like Shakespeare. We're only debating about how subjective standards are applied at the highest level of art.

But like how can you argue objectively that Virginia Woolf is better or worse than TS Eliot? You can't; it comes down to personal preference.

>>5009400
>tell me your experience with professional orchestra auditions and how being seen influenced you.

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/12/156664337/stereotype-threat-why-women-quit-science-jobs

Making women worry and aware of possible sexism does noticeably affect female results.

Obviously superior male fingers and hands, being longer and stronger for playing instruments, that were designed for men, were dampened by the curtain. So inferior female fingers were given an unfair acoustic advantage. All judges had to do were wear blindfolds to prevent this.

I think it's important to bring things like these up, its a symptom, it should be analysed and understood, not simply corrected. To simply institute a quota would only help to disguise the real problem, turn it less evident.
If we use this opportunity to understand this and it's causes, then we can address to the real problem, and correct all manifestations of it.

>>5009465
Eliot was a plagiarist hack. He had good taste in what he reviewed and stole, but he was a hack none the less. Woolf had style, talent and craftsmanship.

>>5008990
>"Don't make your protagonist of a different race/sex than yourself unless you have a reason to"

That's stupid. Your protagonist is just another character, are all your characters the same as you?

>>5009216

do you even know what de facto means?

>>5009502

Do you give all your characters the same emphasis of narrative as you do your protagonist?

>>5009347
I see your belief, but even you understand that's an opinion, right? You did those worksheets in grade school where you had to tell the difference between an opinion and a fact, I hope?

Why can't Langston Hughes compare with Robert Frost? or Ida Murdoch with James Joyce? Just because you like one or the other better, not because one can proven to be better than the other.

>>5009475
Finally, someone giving women agency over the stupid shit they put themselves through.

See? This is what is meant by misandry. Feminists are full of it. Blame men for everything because they hate them.

Saged. Reported. Hidden.

>>5009475
>Women need to be "told" by feminists about discrimination to "worry" about it
>They don't just live it every day
cool

>>5009028
I think women can be decent craftsmen, ie working something after being given instructions or general directions. From what I see on making-ofs and behind the scenes footage on movies and games is that maybe females work there, especially on the art side of things.
BUT I think they lack in the visionary department. It's just not what they are made to be. Imagining a huge world and coming up with a groundbreaking idea or capturing the insight to produce something like the Apocalypse Now heli-attack is not what their thoughts revolve around.

I mean it's impossible to think of a great female film director, or philosopher even, and that's okay. Because they're women.

>>5009194
>Matisse
>not a master in colour and composition

Just because he didn't paint things like you see in the park with mommy doesn't mean he is bad, son

>>5009475
This is what is meant by misandry. Feminists who would rather blame men for things than working on what's going on in their own heads.

This is why we need men's rights.

>>5009347
>using Whitman to "prove" the existence of a gendered hierarchy

Did you even read Leaves of Grass you schlub?

Taking about grass:
>And it means, Sprouting alike in broad zones and narrow zones,
Growing among black folks as among white,
Kanuck, Tuckahoe, Congressman, Cuff, I give them the same, I
receive them the same.

>>5009520

>>5009525
>men's rights.
You're stooping to the childish level of women and the rest of the egalitarians with that.

>>5009387
I hear you, but this only works up to a certain point, after which the margin of quality between two works becomes so thin that you can't make simple calls like that anymore.

When it comes to selecting work for a canon, this isn't a problem because you can basically just expand the canon as much as you want. But when it comes to something that has finite room and you have to pick and choose (ie a museum) it's reasonable to make sure you include some women and some minorities. I don't see why that's controversial.

>>5009406
I also get put to sleep by Jane Austen. but you're mistaken when you say you're bored by female writers - you're only bored by the female writers you've read so far.

>>5009523
His work is purely visual. It impacts the sense immediately, and then just as quickly subsides. It leaves no trace of itself. It's like reality television.

Fauvism is loud. That's all.

And it's odd that you mock figurative painting (things you see in the park with mommy) to champion Matisse when Matisse remained a figurative painter throughout his entire career.

>>5009449

Well that's exactly what I'm arguing - ditch the old boys' club mentality and judge art as it is. But how do you judge art that you don't get to see, because a museum with limited space opted not to show the non-white non-male artists? So you see on some point quotas are needed for museums. And for the record, most museums I've been to do a really good job of being showing stuff from minorities (women, not so much)

>>5009493

I agree with you, but the key word was "objectively" argue.

>>5009520

Lol this is a good troll post. has anyone bothered to think that maybe great women directors/philosophers are hard to name simply because it's not a vocation that many of them choose?

it's like saying you can't think of any great black skiers or polo players. It's not because they can't do these things; it's because they don't.

>>5009597
>it's because they don't.

Yes. Because it's not something they are inclined to do, or comes easy to them and so on. It's part of what makes them women.

But they bitch and whine about it like impotent childeren, wanting their medal for "doing their best" as well! But that's okay, because that also is a womanly quality.

>>5009607
>women are one person

>>5009597

>has anyone bothered to think that maybe great women directors/philosophers are hard to name simply because it's not a vocation that many of them choose?

then why are you in this thread? this thread is specifically about representation in art.

>>5009632

that's exactly what the namefag implied in the previous post

>>5009528

Yes, but I can tell you misread it.

>>5009536
>it's reasonable to make sure you include some women and some minorities.

Yeah, you could have Basquiat in there. That's about it.

>>5009547
>His work is purely visual. It impacts the sense immediately, and then just as quickly subsides. It leaves no trace of itself. It's like reality television.

Implying your myopic viewpoint is shared by all. top laff.

>>5009577

You can name the amount of good minority artists on one hand, so the selection is going to be limited to begin with. Anyway there are plenty of minorities in the artifacts section, with the funny masks and pottery etc. It's actually all minorities so I don't see why they should even be up in arms.

>>5009632
Of course there are exceptions, THERE ARE ALWAYS FUCKING EXCEPTIONS YOU RETARD. "In general" is implied.

Example:
Black people have black skin.
BUT:
There are also blacks with white skin. Hence not all black people are black. But

>>5009597

LOL why don't back people ski?

Seriously we saw some black skiers on a field trip once, it's now a family joke in my house. They were singing"we know to ski, we ain't know how to ski."

>>5009632

>>5009695

>>5009653

What do you call movies, jackass? I'm in this thread because it interests me. If you can't tolerate anything that goes from the specific subject to any relevant and related area, then why are you here?

And no, I did not imply women are one person, I'm talking about women in general because it's impracticable to talk about every single one, don't you think?

>>5009520
>it's impossible to think of a great female film director

Maybe if you're a pleb.

Better than Hitchcock or Welles combined.

>>5009761
Oh damn, I thought Leni was male, and I'm German for fucks sake. Yea I'm sexist I guess, BUT STILL.
>captcha: deanial neither

>>5009008
>two wrongs make a right

>>5009726

>What do you call movies, jackass?

what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension? the point of the thread is the women are not represented equally, and your only response is that women aren't interested art (yes, including movies, i'm not even sure what you're trying to say), proving the people you're trying to argue right

> I'm talking about women in general

wow, almost as if that's exactly what the guy who responded to you did

>>5009333
here is something to think about. did the ratio of male to female applicants remain the same?

>>5009517
>implying gender studies classes don't teach women a lot
>implying people lived with the knowledge of Steinem in their daily lives

>>5009448
denied education? not in this country, women's colleges have been around since the early 1800's

>>5008976
me read book
me like book
me read more books

>>5009771

You must have skipped, oh, every other post I made on this thread besides the one you are complaining about. I knew I needed tripcode that stood out more.

You're also putting words in my mouth. I don't say women aren't interested in art, I said I don't think many women have gone into directing movies, hence the inability to name many great women directors - there aren't that many women directors to begin with. Was that hard to follow?

>i'm not sure what you're trying to say

Let's deconstruct it: movies are art. I was answering some anon's point about why he couldn't think of many female directors. So how am I not talking about female representation in art?

>women in general

I didn't say anything to the guy who responded to me - he said that I was implying all women are the same.

Ask yourself: which one of us is having trouble with reading comprehension?

>>5008976
>a work should be solely judged on it's merits not because it fills some sort of social quota.
no one says otherwise. the argument is whether female artists are having their work judged, period

>BEAUTY
>POLITICAL VALUES

pick one