Does anyone else want to create a philosophy that views all art as disposable media that serve as nothing but entertainment?
Why am I being held hostage and told that I'm not allowed to be a part of educated society unless I spend a lot my time reading fiction (and I've read many many more books than most people and they've almost all been fiction)? There are two other things that compound my feels. One, literature has become entwined with the publishing-media-academia industrial complex. /lit/ says that every book is shit unless it's endorsed by these institutions. They are unprepared to question them, even when they publish Tao Lin's tweets (not that I'm passing judgement, but we all know what lit's opinion would be if it was a self published person trying the same thing).
Secondly, so much literature is, let's be honest, the writers feels / narcissism self indulgently packaged in to a book. If people don't care about my feels then I don't see why I should care about their feels.
>>494978
Is that the totality of your philosophical system? That art is worthless? I'm not sure philosophy is the word you're looking for. Unless you mean that as a cornerstone of a philosophy, as in "under anonism we care about things with inherent value that helps society and anything else (ie: art) has only entertainment value. Society should promote feats of engineering over that of art and museums that chronolog the development of improvements of design will replace all government funded art galleries."
That could work.
>>494994
>instantly accuse me of being someone who insults writers for not building rockets
Why do I even bother
>>494978
>Does anyone else want to create a philosophy that views all art as disposable media that serve as nothing but entertainment?
I'm probably with you anon at that point, but the rest is baffling. Care to elaborate?
>>494978
you'd a priori kill your own philosophy
>all art is disposable
>this is useful
>no proof
>things without proof are subjective
>art is subjective
>subjective is art
>your philosophy is shit
pic related, its you
Art is fucking worthless
you mean art is or art has become?
>>494978
You just sound frustrated with /lit/, really.
If you don't wanna read something then don't, there's no gun to your head unless you want to put one there yourself. You're supposed to read things out of a genuine interest or pleasure, not to be a fucking poser looking for acceptance.
FYI /lit/ doesn't read too deep into their own crap anyhow, you can keep up fine with youtube summaries and wikipedia. I know 'cause that's what I did when I used to browse and post there, I'd only really read a book if it struck my fancy otherwise the cliff notes were well enough for me.
>Does anyone else want to create a philosophy that views all art as disposable media that serve as nothing but entertainment?
It already exists, it's called autism
>>496639
ayyyy
>>496639
t. brooding teen
>>494978
kill yourself philistine
>>494978
i know what you're saying, but you need to be more clear with your words
to address your op, yeah. institutionalization is a thing. something has to fit the paradigm. this isnt just in literature and publishing
>>496603
>you can keep up fine with youtube summaries and wikipedia. I know 'cause that's what I did when I used to browse and post there, I'd only really read a book if it struck my fancy otherwise the cliff notes were well enough for me.
It's people like you who ruin /sci/, /lit/ and /his/. It's painfully obvious when someone's just read a wiki summary. The problem is that there are so many people who do this and not enough "experts" to correct them.
