[ 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: 12 KB, 245x300, Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_René_Descartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3177467 No.3177467 [Reply] [Original]

How can you argue that Literary Criticism is NOT a huge pile of steaming horse shit?

It is logically fallacious to assume that one can judge, quantify, and legitimize or even deny art in objective terms-- even if your judgement of a book (or even painting, but we'll leave that out for now) is purely cerebral, you base that judgement on a logical and intellectual system of critique that YOU, personally, have elected.

And if you do not, then you judge it through the lens of a logical and intellectual system of critique that others have deemed noteworthy and acceptable, which completely discredits you as a rational, FREE thinker.

If I think freely, my response to literature and art as a whole is personal and cannot be valued over other opinions that circulate. If I do not think freely, then I do not judge or critique art at all- I merely regurgitate a common consensus.

You may attempt to disprove my claim by asserting that my logical critique of Literary Criticism is, by my own standards, simply personal- and you are right- but that is only deflecting from the FACT that LIterary Criticism is not and cannot be what it claims to be, outside of my own opinion. It denies and discredits itself simply by claiming to be something impossible.

And so I ask you, much to your and my own chagrin, to disprove me.

>> No.3177470

>It is logically fallacious

stopped reading here

>> No.3177472

>>3177470
Don't worry you didn't miss anything.

>> No.3177478

>>3177467

I agree, and I hate it because I write fiction, or at least try to, and if all art is actually of equal value because any criticism of it derives from arbitrary values, then what the fuck is the point?

>> No.3177487

Of course it relies on personal referents - doesn't mean the models themselves aren't interesting and just another lens through which to look at a text - criticism, like theory is not intended as an absolute (they're all just different ways of looking at a text), not THE way

>> No.3177488

>>3177472
then why are you bumping this, idiot.

>> No.3177493

>>3177488
Because I forgot how to sage. Why are you bumping this idiot?

>> No.3177509

>>3177493
because I get satisfaction from annoying people like you.

>> No.3177528

>3177467
It's not a pile of horse shit at getting people paid to talk about literature ... which is its actual purpose.

>> No.3177541
File: 1023 KB, 245x145, tumblr_m96a61SfyI1qgvdf9o3_250.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3177541

So what literary criticism didn't you like Op, give us specific examples

>> No.3177556

>3177541
OP here. I shitposted and I realize that now.

I can admit when I've said something stupid.

>> No.3177981

It is logically fallacious to assume that one can judge, quantify, and legitimize or even deny methods of art criticism in objective terms.

>> No.3178029

Which literary critics are claiming to " judge, quantify, and legitimize or even deny art in objective terms" ?

Because it wasn't anyone I've ever heard of.