Why do you postmodernists think aesthetics is subjective and any categorization of literature or art is pointless if we all agree Tolstoy and JK Rowling are in different categories?

File: 422 KB, 970x1507, tolstoy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 15:44:50 2020 No.15850959 [Reply] [Original]

Why do you postmodernists think aesthetics is subjective and any categorization of literature or art is pointless if we all agree Tolstoy and JK Rowling are in different categories?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 16:20:00 2020 No.15851201 Respond :(

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 16:50:06 2020 No.15851399 >>15850959 I don't know, do we?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 16:52:37 2020 No.15851432 >>15850959 I like that book cover

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 16:52:57 2020 No.15851433 >>15850959 Because once you remove God, what is the arbiter?

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 16:53:24 2020 No.15851436

>>15850959
>postmodernists think aesthetics is subjective

Only meme post-modernists. While post-modern aesthetics is about erasing the high/low art binary and embracing pop culture, it does not follow that artistic standards does not apply to pulp and that taste is an illusion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 16:53:59 2020 No.15851447 >>15850959 Popularization of postmodern art was literally a CIA psyop.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 16:54:14 2020 No.15851450 >>15851399 Yes. Every time I say a work of art is better than another some post modern tells me that nothing is better than anything else.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 16:55:16 2020 No.15851459 >>15851447 Not true. The evidence shows that the CIA was involved but there is no reason to suggest they were the main reason or even a substantial reason for their popularity

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 16:57:31 2020 No.15851477 >>15851459 Jackson Pollock was a fed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:02:47 2020 No.15851529 >>15851477 No he wasn't

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:07:00 2020 No.15851572 >>15851529 Yes he was. So was De Kooning. Their exhibits only toured on the CIA's dime.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:08:46 2020 No.15851590 >>15851572 >Their exhibits only toured on the CIA's dime. This is not true. You have no source which could show this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:17:00 2020 No.15851668 >>15851590 The CIA funded "The International Program" in full by appropriating New York's Museum of Modern art, which toured 3 dozen times in 5 years. They also payed off the Congress for Cultural Freedom. You are disingenuous.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:19:36 2020 No.15851687 >>15851668 Provide a source showing the amount of payment and they were the sole reason.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:22:14 2020 No.15851712 >>15851687 Do your own fucking research moron I'm not your fucking secretary.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:23:27 2020 No.15851726 >>15851712 What you are saying isn't true which is why you can't provide a source lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:28:16 2020 No.15851770 >>15851726 >implying you'd have even read any source provided You people are like fucking rats begging for heroin here's your last (You)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:32:11 2020 No.15851792 >>15851770 Do you really expect to just make lies and not get called out for not posting a source lol?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:33:15 2020 No.15851798 >>15851792 https://www.google.com/search?q=abstract+art+cia

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:35:36 2020 No.15851820 >>15851798 Yeah did you know Obama is funded by cuba https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+funded+cuba

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:35:36 2020 No.15851821 >>15851450 You're talking to brainlets try to avoid them although they make up over 99% of the population IME. Post-modernism isn't a thing that people identify as its a term thats thrust upon them by lesser individuals.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:38:58 2020 No.15851853 File: 5 KB, 250x187, 1594645056299.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15851820 Shut the fuck up already you fucking stupid retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:41:16 2020 No.15851873 >>15851853 Your teacher would give an F for this if you submitted it as homework

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:43:52 2020 No.15851896

>>15851873
Teachers should be forced to look up sources for themselves. Bibliographies are for the intellectually lazy. If you think it's some internet rando's job to provide you with a source like he's your fucking intern because you're too lazy to open up a new tab you're on the wrong fucking board >>>>/b/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:45:48 2020 No.15851906 >>15851896 If you don't provide a source can't I just make up anything I want and you would have to take me at face value. You can't honestly think you shouldn't have a provide a source for your claim.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:46:24 2020 No.15851913 >>15850959 name one significant difference between the works of tolstoy and rowling.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:48:12 2020 No.15851928

>>15851450
When has this ever happened? Not once in my entire life have I heard somebody genuinely and unironically express the opinion that "nothing is better than anything else," least of all on /lit/, where everyone takes great pride in hating shit books.
Something about the way mass media works in the 21st century has given everyone their own customized windmills to tilt at. Every time I hear some retard talking about their political opinions, they always seem to rail against imaginary enemies that hate everything they stand for.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:50:21 2020 No.15851946 >>15851913 Tolstoy eventually grew to sympathize with serfs and Rowling couldn't give less of a fuck that everyone in her fantasy world enslaved sentient creatures

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:53:37 2020 No.15851971

>>15851906
I don't have to provide a source for a claim that is factually fucking correct and that you can look up on your own easily. This fucking pathetic polluted idea has infected the mind of every fucking poster on the internet.
>mommy mommy give me source
Shut the fuck up. You don't want a source. In your rotted disgusting fucking mind, you equate "source" with "mean man go away", you hear some shit you don't want to hear and it offends your sensibilities so your only option is to cry "mommy mommy I want source" and go off into a fit of denial. No source in existence would fucking satiate you because you see yourself as infallible and eternally correct. Fuck you, you don't get a source faggot. Look it up on your own fucking time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 17:58:05 2020 No.15851993 Is Resurrection worth reading? I found Hadji Murat quite interesting, don't know what I am in for with this one

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:02:39 2020 No.15852032 File: 112 KB, 1122x900, 988.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >MOMMY MOMMY GIVE ME SOURCE

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:06:49 2020 No.15852071

>>15851928
Make a thread about old architecture and the thread will be filled with guys talking about "it's just your opinion that's it better than this ugly square bunker" or bring up music and they will say you can't actually prove Beethoven is better than this guy on rapping over some beats he made on Ableton live

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:11:10 2020 No.15852102 >>15851971 Not him just wanted the comment on the hilarious level of seething and stretching in retaliation to being found out as a pseud.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:13:07 2020 No.15852116 >>15852102 I could very easily provide a source. My entire point of contention is that he doesn't actually want a source to be provided. It's nothing but a buzzword and I'm not going to play into this shit anymore.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:29:09 2020 No.15852263

>>15852071
Where do you have these conversations? Anywhere on 4chan, you're more likely to hear people like you complaining about how somewhere out there in the world people have those opinions than to see anybody actually come into the thread to say Chief Keef is just as good as Beethoven and African mud huts are just as good as Notre Dame.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:32:43 2020 No.15852290 >>15850959 Self-deception to cope with self-hatred. If everything is subjective then they’re not really ugly failures.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:37:49 2020 No.15852318 >>15852116 I want a source, provide it for me.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:38:01 2020 No.15852319

>>15851433
kek. knowledge of art.

>>15850959
(You) people make me sick. dont be a dumb.

and yes the CIA funded exhibitions to attempt to demonstrate that this backwater shithole called america wasnt just filled with ignorant corn huskers. that doesnt say anything about the artists you midget cuks.

f f s you are all retards.

of course the cia was wrong - this place is filled with morons which is why coof coof trump is here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:39:02 2020 No.15852328 >>15852318 No

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:40:30 2020 No.15852336 >>15852328 But I want one, unlike the other guy You said you could provide it easily. How could it hurt, unless you can't do it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:41:31 2020 No.15852343 >>15852319 How is knowledge of art an arbiter?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:43:43 2020 No.15852362 >>15852343 you fucking figure it out sherlock the actual fuck? how is knowledge an arbiter of a determination?

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:44:51 2020 No.15852369

>>15852336
I can do it, as I said, I'm not going to anymore. Every single time I have every provided a source on this board, or anywhere else on the internet, it isn't addressed. There is no purpose to providing a source. It is simply ritualistic. The constant source begging has become an absolutely pathological behaviour in the past like 6 or 7 years and I'm sick of it. If you want to know more about something or want to investigate the validity of a claim, you're an adult, you can do it yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:45:08 2020 No.15852373 >>15852362 >I can't argue or expand on my own points Figures as much

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:45:11 2020 No.15852374 >>15850959 Who are THESE postmodernists?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:46:11 2020 No.15852379 >>15852369 So I guess the CIA didn't finance Pollock after all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:47:33 2020 No.15852385 >>15852379 Yeah keep telling yourself buddy. Whatever you have to say to prevent yourself from having to look things up on your own like a big boy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:47:49 2020 No.15852388 >>15851971 I fucked your mom in the asshole last night. Don't ask for a source it actually happened trust me :D

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:48:51 2020 No.15852397 >>15852369 This guy is baiting this board so hard lmao. He is literally inventing conspiracies and acting like they are real.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:49:28 2020 No.15852402 >>15852388 Researched it on my own and came to the conclusion that this didn't actually happen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:49:53 2020 No.15852405 >>15852263 /lit/ is left wing and postmodernist. So is /mu/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:51:17 2020 No.15852411 >>15852385 I just looked it up, lol, turns out it's a /pol/tard tier conspiracy theory. Can see why you're unable to provide a source.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:52:15 2020 No.15852418 File: 61 KB, 869x540, 1491150160000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15852397 >>15852411

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:52:33 2020 No.15852420 >>15852402 I researched it my own and I came to the conclusion that it was true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:53:40 2020 No.15852426 >>15852420 I did some more digging and found out it was actually your own mom and not mine at all.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:55:33 2020 No.15852435

>>15852418
You know you could just post the quotations and we would all look like retards and prove your point but you can't because you are baiting. I think what's more likely is you think it's true because it's posted around /lit/ and pol and things like that but you haven't actually read the sources or the books like The cultural cold war to prove your claims which is why you are acting like this because you haven't actually read the sources you just know of the sources. Am I right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:56:06 2020 No.15852439 >>15852418 >why don't you take me at face value >why don't you assume all sources are the same >just trust me bro

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:57:48 2020 No.15852449 >>15852405 /lit/ does not think all books have equal merit and never has, tourist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 18:58:25 2020 No.15852452 >>15852449 I've made at least 20 posts where 90% of the posts say that. Do you want me to post them?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:00:01 2020 No.15852461 >>15852452 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:00:45 2020 No.15852466 >>15852418 Kek, keep crying as all your claims are proven untrue by your sheer inability to support them.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:01:25 2020 No.15852471

>>15852435
I actually have The Cultural Cold War in my library. I have a complete and total disdain for this emergent behavior of source begging. It's totally pointless. No one is seriously asking for a source. It's all just ego stimulation. I'm done with providing sources to people. When you tell me you want a source, you are lying to my face. You are a fucking liar and you expect me to do what you want. Any time I see someone ask for a source I immediately know they are totally fucking wasted apebrain retards.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:01:31 2020 No.15852473 >>15852373 oh, you figured something out for yourself did you? oh wait, you didnt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:03:35 2020 No.15852485 >>15852473 Keep on coping son. Maybe one day, with more reading, you'll understand your own position.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:04:17 2020 No.15852488 >>15852439 You don't even really want a source you fucking rat.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:04:36 2020 No.15852490 >>15852471 >I actually have The Cultural Cold War in my library. No you don't.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:04:50 2020 No.15852493

>>15852471
I've literally told you what the source is you have which means I'm not a retard. I've the read the book which is why I'm telling you couldn't provide any sources for your claims. You are wrong. I've read the book. There is nothing in there you could point to.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:06:12 2020 No.15852501 >>15852461 >>/lit/thread/S15802609#p15804691 >>/lit/thread/S15665548#p15665713 >>/lit/thread/S13893842#p13893946 Here are three from recent times.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:06:52 2020 No.15852507 >>15850959 I blame the dada movement

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:15:30 2020 No.15852564

>>15852493
>There is nothing in there you could point to.
I could point to the interviews with literal CIA feds. But again, this isn't actually about actually sourcing things, this is all just a dopamine junkie fix to you. When you cry source it's a masturbatory act. You could have easily come to the conclusion I was making reference to the claims in The Cultural Cold War with a 5 second google search of "CIA and art", but you didn't, because you're not looking for a source to my claim at all. You don't really want a source, you want some (You)s and BTFOs.

Nobody who has ever asked for a source, has actually wanted a source, if they were really that interested in the claim, they'd have looked it up themselves. The ask for a source is the most pseudointellectual behavior imaginable. To posture as if you are some sort of academic proofreading an entry to a journal.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:18:20 2020 No.15852581

>>15852501
The vast majority of posters in those threads are agreeing with you, you goddamn retard. You literally proved my point that there is more of an uproar of people railing against those imaginary positions than people actually holding them.
You said you had twenty threads where 90% of the posts asserted that all books have equal merit, but not a single post in any of those three threads makes such a claim.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:19:47 2020 No.15852586

>>15852564
I'm telling you that I've read the book and the claims you make are a mix of not true and half truths. I'VE READ THE BOOK. You can make this easy for us and just provide the quotations that you think support your point or I'll be the adult here and go over the passages I think you were describing and show they don't actually support your claims in anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:23:01 2020 No.15852609 >>15852586 The CIA used Rockefeller foundation cash through the Museum of Modern art to finance the International Program. If you've truly read the book, this claim is irrefutable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:26:05 2020 No.15852628 >>15852609 Sure but there is no reason to suggest they are the main reason or even a partial reason for the success of abstract expressionism which is the claim you made.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:31:58 2020 No.15852655

>>15852628
I said popularization of abstract art was a CIA psyop, which it was, and said the Pollock and De Kooning were backed by the feds, which they were. I don't give a shit whether or not the were the "main reason" there is no main reason for anything, everything is a cause of multiple effects. This entire fucking argumentative shitshow is only derived from the fact that these fucking faggots ask for a source when their sensibilities get bruised. It is a stimulative reaction to them. You read the book, you know I was right, and you know that this fucking begging for sources shit is disingenuous.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:33:05 2020 No.15852665

>>15850959
This tendency to put everything on the same plane is explained by the postmodernist's delusional belief that any kind of standard is fascism. That some creations are "just better" than others leaves the door open that some people are just better, or some culture, races...This fear is of course founded entirely on nothing. They believe that these standards of quality are fronts for obfuscated arbitrary power relations. In reality there is such a thing as objective merit, but it's an expansive concept.

Ask any aficionado of any craft and they will identify with surety varying grades of quality. A clean and confident versus a wavering and broken brushstroke. Sonorous and full singing vocal versus a warbling and unsure croak. Originality versus derivativeness. In fact the whole economy and coherence of the arts rests upon these standards just as much as the structures of the built environment rely on objective engineering standards. Postmodernism is an intellectual carcinogen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:37:02 2020 No.15852692 >>15852655 Your initial claim is disingenuous and looks like the only reason for the popularity of abstract art was the CIA when there a thousand others factors at play. Next time maybe preface it so people don't go around screaming out half truths

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:40:25 2020 No.15852723 >>15852692 Yeah it wasn't supposed to be some grand fucking thesis dipshit. It's a single sentence post. Didn't even expect any replies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:42:49 2020 No.15852739 >>15852723 Yeah but that's the 20th time I've seen someone reply like that and all it does it spread lies and ruins the discourse. Makes the conspiracy retards go crazy

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:45:48 2020 No.15852770 >>15852739 There's no way anybody believes it was 100% CIA with no public involvement. It should be taken for granted that their funding it was just adding fuel to the fire.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:46:51 2020 No.15852777 >>15852770 You overestimate the people on this website

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:50:31 2020 No.15852803 >>15852485 HOW CAN KNOWLEDGE OF X BE USED TO MAKER JUDGMENTS REGARDING X? MOMMA HELP ME

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:51:33 2020 No.15852815

>>15852777
No matter how low I set my expectations they're always such bigger fuckups. Zoomers really fucked this place bad. If this had been like 2014 or something I'd have just referenced Saunders and moved on but I'm so fucking sick of these faggots and their incessant samespeak egregore shit. They all just say the same 2 dozen words and they don't mean shit anymore. Nobody even fucking reads on here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:55:37 2020 No.15852839 >>15852815 I'm a zoomer lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 19:58:53 2020 No.15852870 >>15852839 You gotta admit it's gotten really bad recently though. Some zoomers are ok, but nobody lurks anymore before they post.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:00:43 2020 No.15852880 >>15852870 Yeah there is really no reason to come on here. You can guess every single post on every thread just by reading the title or looking at the picture and it's the same threads posting over and over everyday.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:05:25 2020 No.15852918 >>15852880 Got banned for a couple weeks and coming back I was expecting that maybe stuff had gone back to normal but it's all the same shit. Nothing was missed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:08:13 2020 No.15852946 >>15852918 Do you go on any other websites?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:10:05 2020 No.15852965 >>15852946 Nah, got banned on most of them so I just gave up after a while. Used to post on other boards thought but they all get filled up with morons sooner or later. This shits not good for you anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:12:37 2020 No.15852988 >>15852965 What did you get banned for on here

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:13:36 2020 No.15852997 >>15852988 Call for raid. People used to do it all the time though way back.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:22:28 2020 No.15853051 >>15852997 should have called for AIDS

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:23:25 2020 No.15853058 File: 47 KB, 345x115, 1593336916706.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15853051

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:27:38 2020 No.15853092 >>15852803 That still doesn't answer what basis you're making a judgement on.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:29:23 2020 No.15853105 >ITT: a singular autistic boomer having a spergout when asked for a source Always sad to see.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:33:18 2020 No.15853142 >>15853092 no, it does. it answers succinctly, both narrowly and generally, given this 'conversation' is some shitposts on a turkmeni poptart cartoon board.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:34:20 2020 No.15853150 >>15853142 however - im sitting for a coffee before taking a shower. what would you like to talk about?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:36:40 2020 No.15853170 >>15853142 No it doesn't. Enjoy your shower, brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:41:41 2020 No.15853210 >>15853170 of course it does. i dont need god to make a determination.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:42:43 2020 No.15853224 PRAY TELL, GOOD LORD, IS THIS ROCK LARGE OR SMALL? FORSOOTH I CANNOT JUDGE!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:52:16 2020 No.15853304 >>15853210 So how do you objectively determine whether a book is good or not. >>15853224 >confusing physical qualities with aesthetic ones Yeah I think you might be dumb.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:53:43 2020 No.15853314 >>15853304 >thinking aesthetics is somehow divorced from the material being and factually observable relations of things and their parts

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:55:18 2020 No.15853320 >>15853304 by the time youre educated enough to regret this post you'll probably have forgotten it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:57:21 2020 No.15853334 >>15853314 >deriving ought from is Hi Sam

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 20:58:59 2020 No.15853344 >>15853320 Delicious irony. Go on, try and educate me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:00:25 2020 No.15853359 >>15853334 awwwww philobaby has a cute and irrelevant rule of thumb

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:04:32 2020 No.15853393 >>15853359 It's perfectly relevant lad, what are you struggling with?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:05:43 2020 No.15853402 File: 102 KB, 396x400, raphael_tondo_vierge.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15853393 ought me, bro

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:06:34 2020 No.15853408 >>15853402 Do you think that painting is beautiful? Why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:07:05 2020 No.15853412 File: 1.49 MB, 1925x2000, 333_1939_cccr2000_jpeg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] dude ought me

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:08:17 2020 No.15853424 File: 275 KB, 736x644, af0aff1a7b16d8c0bfca0efa29f4df47.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ought me broskerino

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:09:34 2020 No.15853435 File: 87 KB, 720x721, 1085.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ugh muh oughts

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:10:13 2020 No.15853440 >>15853412 >>15853424 Are any of these good? What makes them good, if so? What makes them bad, if not? I'm not sure you understand the is/ought distinction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:10:50 2020 No.15853443 your oughts are glued to a building on fire

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:11:52 2020 No.15853453 File: 78 KB, 747x676, 15505.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15853443 muh irrelevant rubrics

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:13:03 2020 No.15853464 UNDER THE OUGHTS DOWNTOWN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc106kSO2yk

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:15:26 2020 No.15853478 kek, didn't realize how much I got under your skin. Feel free to think about it in the shower.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:17:02 2020 No.15853490 >>15853478 youre not under my skin. i have no clue what youre under.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:22:08 2020 No.15853539 File: 26 KB, 500x357, kekatu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15853490 Sure thing lad. Hope your coffee was nice.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:25:05 2020 No.15853565 >>15853539 it was delicious but what ought it be?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:27:15 2020 No.15853590 >>15853565 What determines objective deliciousness?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:32:50 2020 No.15853639 >>15853590 the senses or is it the nonsensual concept of deliciousness fuck i dont know

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:35:16 2020 No.15853652 >>15853639 sounds subjective to me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 21:40:11 2020 No.15853682 >>15853652 yes, but if you have a knowledge of coffee, its methods of production, of the cultural norms and differences, the range of possible tastes and preferences, that sense of being purely subjective will be dispelled.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 22:20:58 2020 No.15854015

>>15853682
So if you think a coffee tastes delicious and someone who knows more about coffee than you thinks it tastes like mud, then you're wrong when you think it tastes delicious? If two coffee drinkers of equal knowledge differ on whether or not a coffee tastes good or not, how is it determined who is correct?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 22:26:32 2020 No.15854053 >>15854015 >youre wrong yes. liking it doesnt make it good.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 22:59:55 2020 No.15854276

>>15854053
This ignores the subjective preference of the critic (to use the term generally), naively assuming that their knowledge is absolute and their appreciation free of all personal bias. An expert may have knowledge of a work, its production and history but that does not mean he will like it and it is that ultimately subjective experience which will inform their appraisal.
In fact, its been demonstrated time and time again throughout art and literary history that vast knowledge of a particular form is in fact a hindrance to appreciation and creative development as the expert critic clings conservatively towards what is familiar.
None of this answers this second question of how to distinguish true aesthetic value from experts when experts themselves of equal knowledge do not agree. You're simply passing the buck from your own subjective experience to another's.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 23:05:31 2020 No.15854317 >>15850959 Objecively they're not in different categories. nothing to do with postmodernism.

Anonymous Mon Jul 13 23:55:05 2020 No.15854622

>>15854276
who cares about the subjective preferences of the experiencer ('critic' - ok cuk)?

>In fact, its been demonstrated time and time again throughout art and literary history that vast knowledge of a particular form is in fact a hindrance to appreciation and creative development

hahahahahahahha!

>as the expert critic clings conservatively towards what is familiar.
'critic' again who cares?!?!?!

suck my buck bb

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 13 23:56:12 2020 No.15854628 >>15854317 objectively they are

Anonymous Tue Jul 14 00:07:36 2020 No.15854702

>>15854622
You're the one who brought up expertise. The subjective experience of the critic is the fundamental part of their appraisal just as much as it is a layman. There is no escaping it, expertise or not.
>hahahahahahahha!
>suck my buck bb
The pseud cries out when it is exposed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 14 00:11:12 2020 No.15854731 >>15854702 >expertise >critic >appraisal talk about flawed language id rather hear walt whitman talk about poetry than a critic

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 14 00:59:23 2020 No.15854990 >>15850959 >132 replies >18 posters

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 14 01:06:41 2020 No.15855034 >>15854990 all me by the way

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 14 01:44:56 2020 No.15855233 >>15854990 just means 9 massive arguments

Anonymous Tue Jul 14 01:47:27 2020 No.15855251

>>15851993
Seriously mediocre. It was the first Tolstoy I ever read and was greatly disappointed. majority of the book is muh aristocracy is hypocritical muh prisoners are the only good people muh wouldnt the world be great if everyone was nice to each other and stuff like that. Also owning land is bad apparently

Seriously tho, its really average.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 14 01:49:51 2020 No.15855269 >>15854628 Yes they were published on different dates

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 14 01:50:53 2020 No.15855272 >>15854053 >how does language work :(

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 14 02:51:05 2020 No.15855609 >>15851993 yes. it's a masterpiece. tolstoy was a genius, pretty much everything he wrote was pure art >>15855251 filtered so so hard

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 14 03:02:37 2020 No.15855658 >>15855272 calling shit chocolate doesnt make it so, even if scat heads like you dig it

Anonymous Tue Jul 14 09:58:31 2020 No.15857854

>>15854731
>n-no you're t-talking about the wrong e-experts, I m-mean these kind of e-experts!
kek. And what makes Whitman more qualified than a critic (even though he was one), other than the fact that he writes poetry? Because he's a "good" poet? Then we're back to the question, which you keep dodging, of how do you determine his "goodness?" Your definition of value is grounded entirely in subjectivity.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature