[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 248 KB, 1088x784, Bonheur_Matisse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6629364 No.6629364 [Reply] [Original]

Why shouldn't people feel bad for reading shit lit?

>> No.6629372

>>6629364
They should????

>> No.6629456
File: 8 KB, 249x250, 1433102804028.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6629456

Because art is subjective.

You can't say something is good or bad because its only your opinion

>> No.6629461

>>6629456
Lick my ass

>> No.6629466

>>6629461
no you

>> No.6629475

>>6629364
Whenever I feel sad I look at Matisse's works.
Feels good man.

>> No.6629477

>>6629456
So you don't believe that there is a universal aesthetic ingrained in the collective human soul?

>> No.6629490

>>6629364
I don't really know, I don't really have any idea why someone shouldn't feel bad for doing anything.

How about you tell us why people should feel bad for reading shit, then we can look over those reasons and see which ones are valid and which ones have logical counterpoints?

So, why should people feel bad for reading shit?

>> No.6629510
File: 10 KB, 256x192, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6629510

>>6629477
what?

>> No.6629511

>>6629477
please read what hegel, heidegger and adorno (in that order) have to say about this.

>> No.6629529

>>6629511
what about kant, fichte, and schelling??

>> No.6629544

>>6629529
>>6629477 is apparently (unknowingly?) familiar with kants idea of art and aesthetic. and fuck those other nerds.

>> No.6629597

>>6629364
Because if they are reading it they don't consider it shit, therefore no reason for them to feel bad about it.

>> No.6629601
File: 226 KB, 754x775, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6629601

>>6629477
WHAT?

>> No.6629681

>>6629511
I've read Hegel's interpretation of it, and the theorized end of art is generally what I'm referring to. Is Heidegger's interpretation in Being and Time? I recently bought it, and will read it as soon as I get the chance. Adorno is now on the list, thanks.
Could I possibly get a brief overview of their points?
>>6629544
And, yes, I generally agree with Kant, especially about the Beautiful and the Sublime (although I do think aesthetics can go beyond just form). It might be naive and only applicable to Western culture, but I think there is a universal aesthetic.
I'm sorry, I'm editing papers right now and I'm sure I'm not being clear at all.

>> No.6629861

You can only conceptualize good literature after reading bad literature.

>> No.6629958

OP is asking for proof of a negative. He must first provide reasoning for why people should feel bad for reading shit lit.

>> No.6630021
File: 120 KB, 800x509, 223.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6630021

>>6629477
Did someone just say, 'spooks'?

>> No.6630033

>>6629511
Hacks

>> No.6630056

>>6629456
Yes because john green and Proust are equally good

>> No.6630264

>>6629456
Hey that's neat. What are aesthetics

>> No.6630296

>>6629364
>It's just like my Asian woodblock pictures!