http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/magazine/the-death-of-adulthood-in-american-culture.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/06/against_ya_adults_should_be_embarrassed_to_read_children_s_books.html
>Noting that nearly a third of Y.A. books were purchased by readers ages 30 to 44 (most of them presumably without teenage children of their own), Graham insisted that such grown-ups “should feel embarrassed about reading literature for children.” Instead, these readers were furious. The sentiment on Twitter could be summarized as “Don’t tell me what to do!” as if Graham were a bossy, uncomprehending parent warning the kids away from sugary snacks toward more nutritious, chewier stuff.
Why is children's literature so popular nowadays?
in case it's the next big movie or TV show, the readers can brag that the book was better
post-modernism bringing about the death of objective standards, meaning they're not looked down upon for reading shitty books; instead of being ashamed of it, they're defensive of their pleb taste ("if I enjoy it, it's good").
>>8271567
post-post-modernism when?
>>8271575
Wouldn't it be easier to go back to modernism?
>>8271580
modernism was ended by WWII so no
I'm 100% sure I wasn't extended a job offer from Macmillan because in the interview when the woman asked what I read I told her mostly literary fiction and some history and she just looked uncomfortable after that.
>>8271591
You're supposed to lie and say the New Yorker, the Economist, pseudo-intellectual magazines or newspapers like that, or name-drop Chomsky or another Pop Philosopher like Malcolm Gladwell.
>>8271580
If we're going back, why stop at Modernism? Fucking bring back the Ancients and the Medievals.
>>8271597
This sort of feeling is why ASOIAF and LotR are so popular these days. Harkens back to a time when culture was stricter and made more sense.
>>8271520
The two biggest parts of being an adult are 1. dealing with suffering, and 2. devoting your life to someone else. How often do you think the average person does either of these in an average day?
Our lives are nothing but an infantile game of budget management.
>>8271520
The irony is that she brags about reading shit that the pseuds here would consider laughably middlebrow. Stay out of the culture wars, kids, they're a joke. Just read what you like.
>>8271599
says who? your not the boss of me :^)
>>8271567
Don't be a fool, post-modernism had nothing to do with that. It's easy when you're not blithering retard to forget that the average person has no idea what the fuck the intellectual left is up to. How many fucking times do we have to go through the same shit, intellectualizing at peasants, and obviously failing when they get distracted by a butterfly or shiny object or insert escapism here. God damnit Glauber Rocha you faggot why the FUCK would a peasant want to watch a film about how shitty their life is holy FUCK.
Anyway, this behavior from adults has been around since time immemorial. Go take a look at all the trash that was selling as pulp novels in the first half of the 20th century. It's probably better than just drinking and gambling, which is what that demographic did back when they were illiterate.
>>8271595
Fucking hate Gladwell. What a reductive shithead. Up there with Alain De Botton.
>>8271598
ughh I wish I was alive in ASOIAF/medieval times, life made so much sense then and was so easy. Plzzzz OP
>>8271597
NEO-Romanticism 2BH
>>8271520
the Times piece is pointless. We all know entertainment is moving further and further from art, and there are a million ways to gauge it or explain it, this guy's chosen a feminist/maturity angle, part of the picture I guess.
One could also run the same beads of different media (that are arranged more or less from old and better to new and shitty) with a string made out of declining education standards, or the fall of the manufacturing labor class, or the saturation of lives with media consumption.
>>8271621
>old man yells at book
>>8271606
>Any such person has completely lost their sense of imagination and fun
Implying that young adult is the only imaginative genre is fucking retarded. Joyce was a billion times more creative than any shitty youth fantasy writer is.
Also Alice's Adventures in Wonderland isn't Young Adult, it's just a children's book, written by someone who could actually write (i.e., not a young adult author).
>>8271917
Reminds me of all those intellectually deformed redditors who refuse to believe the past can be better than the future
>>8271621
>>8271575
thats already a thing
>>8271621
this is a copypasta right?
>>8271917
id give up reading for snake goblets and opium anyday
>>8271651
Glauber Rocha is god tier, you cuck. Too kino for you?
>>8271651
This. I imagine most are decompressing or embarking on a read that has a campy dedicated base with which they can engage easily over drinks.
>>8272166
Christ with egg in his beard man, in a thread discussing the average level of adult readers you had to out yourself as slobbering retard didn't you.
>read some contemporary "adult" literature in college
>it's just "YOU'RE A FUCKING WHITE MALE" for 300 pages
and they wonder why men are flocking to sci-fi and fantasy
i wonder how rare it is statistically to read proper literature.
we are in a constant struggle of the innocence versus the intellect.
>>8271590
WWIII when?
>>8272104
Kekked
>>8271575
Not post-post modernism, but a new paradigm altogether that has not yet been named might have the chance to exist in the future. Technology is going to backfire within a few hundred years, and lots of people are starting to get sick of their corporate masters. I can see something drastic happening, but don't hold your breath. Only drastic occurrences can topple such large and strong foundations of culture and civilization.
>>8271567
Agreed.
>>8271651
Also agreed though. I don't think intellectual communities are angered by the sheer separation of desires between the average person and a intellectual. The average man has relatively been the same and has had the same desires, and potential for thousands of years, we are all only held aloft by the scientific progress of geniuses.
I think what is going on in OP's post is that the market on literature towards the average person is effectively becoming slimmer and slimmer. No longer are there specific niches of genres, but only the genres that serve the Young Adult novel are being bought. There is less variety in the pool of escapist literature, a tighter grasp means less possibility for development towards the future in improving the literary community.
Tell me if I am wrong though, these are my quick thoughts.
Quantity over quality in general?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2096542-evolutionary-forces-are-causing-a-boom-in-bad-science/?utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=SOC&utm_campaign=hoot&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2016-GLOBAL-hoot
>>8271575
What emotion is the yellow person in this meme supposed to be feeling?
>>8272351
The people reading those books aren't innocent in the slightest. They read for social value, because the people in their circles read the same things. True innocence is quite rare, but I hope it manages to somehow emerge victorious.
>>8272368
The NYT is closer to the truth I think. Most adult YA readers are rejecting adulthood in the old fashioned American way: by conforming with something else.
A pile of adults essentially decide to talk about books for children with each other instead of doing adult things.
These people vote.
>>8272495
>doing adult things
???
>>8272367
Concealed deviousness.
>>8271520
Because the average joe already works a mentally exhausting full-time job. They buy these books as a way to decompress during their free time, which is difficult to do when you're picking your way through a philosophical essay or some shit.
Even then, it's not like all YA fiction is Hunger Games or Twilight tier. There are decent books out there in the YA section.
... Or there used to be, at least. It's been a while since I've read anything new since starting college. Mostly I've just been working on my old backlog.
>>8271520
>that first article
Jesus Christ, so much written about so little. I stopped reading when he started talking about male privilege and feminism.
>>8272514
He was a published author, which required setting up a writing regimen, encoding many layers of plot into his books, interacting with authority figures to get published, enduring rejection, enduring periods where he "didn't feel like writing" and so on. He chose to read fairy tales like an adult, not in order to not be an adult.
>>8272539
It's a very "dumb people can have good ideas too" type of article.
>>8271917
pretty much
>back in my day adulthood...
Guys help, I'm having a dilemma here. Is ASOIAF YA? I know it's pleb shit, but I've been enjoying it. I'm not saying it's high literature, but it's entertaining and it passes the time. Does this make me some man boy? I tend to enjoy classic literature like Les Miserables or the Count of Monte Cristo but I gave this one a go and I like it.
>>8271567
That's a rather monolithic view of the situation. People say a book is "good" or "bad", but that ultimately tells us rather little of their value judgement. It's like asking whether a mathematician considers a number or series of numbers "big" or "small". The book is good, but for what?
The answer here is most likely that the general public is interested in something highly accessible, fantastical, and sanitized of all offensive language, deeds and/or unconventional moral systems. They want to be able to talk about the books with a broad audience. The motivation for reading the book could encompass personal pleasure, but the demographics reading books to peer with their children, and subsequently the demographics reading books to peer with those peering with their children, should not be understated. They can't wait for the next movie.
In short, the modern reader is looking for something that goes down easy, like a TV drama in book form. They're also looking for an opportunity to identify and peer with others, prizing volume over quality of these associations. They are not looking for experimentation with the medium, philosophical discussion, conundrums or even brilliant storytelling. They're looking for something they can download on Audible to get them through their road trip.
There's nothing wrong with any of that. They are reading for the purpose of enjoyment, so if they enjoy it, it IS good.
>>8271621
>>8271520
newsflash: most "serious" literature is fucking boring and is mostly read by people to feel superior.
>>8272535
>There are decent books out there in the YA section
Can you name a couple authors then?
they take less time to finish maybe? i cant make it through ya stuff myself, so dont know
but let's assume that's true, maybe real writers should write slimmer tomes? im not a fan of massive, bloated novels. it's fine with someone like pynchon, fits his baroque style, but say jonathan franzen? id rather break a limb than finish one
i wonder what the average length is of say the top twenty or top forty best-selling lit novels from 1950 onward, or how the top ten of the eighties compare to the top ten of the 00's in length and in sales
>people acting like this is somehow new
Almost every person I know over sixty still talks about Winnie the Pooh, for God's sake.
People always consider the time in which they live, in some way, less good than other time periods. This in itself is a form of escapism, an effort in pathologizing away very real problems that you or people in your life might have in the present. There are articles like this every year, and they're always written by the same sort of person: people who are disgruntled that they aren't part of the Elite, and feel they ought to be in those rings.
These books aren't good, mind. I'm not giving them carte blanche to be horrible works. A supermajority of all media consumed is simplistic and derivative. There is still value in those things, if only to call attention to their many failings and general dearth of ideas.To claim it's somehow more infantilizing than being swaddled in the booming, bald-faced fictions in our sociopolitical ideologies is laughable, though.
>>8272563
Well, I'm sure plenty of the people reading books for kids have jobs too, and do the "adult things" required for those jobs. You don't have to read a certain type of book to be an adult.
>>8271606
Harry Potter is a bad book series
>>8272591
it's not in the "Teen" section of Barnes and Noble.
It is, however, in the "fantasy/sci-fi" section...
>>8272622
Go read Ficciones by Borges, or The Nonexistent Knight by Calvino, or Death With Occasional Interruptions by Saramago
>>8272645
>People always consider the time in which they live, in some way, less good than other time periods. This in itself is a form of escapism, an effort in pathologizing away very real problems that you or people in your life might have in the present.
fucking this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers_Weekly_list_of_bestselling_novels_in_the_United_States_in_the_1980s
scrolled down this for eight seconds, looks like complete shit
>>8271580
if we go back to modernism then in a century we'll be back in post-modernism again
>>8272367
Shock and awe
>>8272601
oh man geez
>>8272622
hahahahaha
>>8272737
I don't think this is the proper Hegelian point to make
I think the right one would be something like trying to go back to modernism and forget the late 20th century already turns it on another thing in itself, not modernism
that being said I only have read tertiary literature on Hegel
>>8271520
I think the problem is a bit broader
It's the Death of the Adult, Puer Aeternus
>>8272774
This.
>>8272601
>member for 26 minutes
>1488 words
>>8272622
The first part is true but only to the extent that most of everything is shit. The second one is just your inferiority complex speaking.
>>8271599
>The two biggest parts of being an adult are 1. dealing with suffering, and 2. devoting your life to someone else
lol look at this brainwashed faggot
>>8272658
Nah, it's good. It's our modern classic children's book.
>>8272017
But medieval and Victorian times are objectively shittier than our age.
>>8272774
>also 'going back' to other time periods in terms of art is also postmodernism
>the PreRaphaelites are postmodern
k
>>8272601
I'd expect this from a side character in Always Sunny, tbqh
>>8272976
preraphs didn't really 'go back' since they were rejecting some aspects of academic painting but retaining others. you'll notice that preraph painting doesn't really look at all like any other non-contemporary (to them) style, let alone the painting before raphael
>Why is children's literature so popular nowadays?
Culture of immediate gratification, postmodern "high brow culture is problematic pedantry anyway" sentiment, (((you know who)))
>>8271599
2spooky4me
>>8273030
they don't talk to a lot of people
>>8273030
Because people here are mostly either in college or freshly graduated and are middle class?
Oh wow, most people like to read shit. What next will be discovered about plebs? They like McDonalds? Don't know how to appreciate good red wine? They just like going out and getting really drunk? They watch Eastenders because their pleb brains can't handle watching something that's not like them. Oh, well, I never, what a revelation!
>>8273055
How old were you when you when you figured it all out?
"Adult literature" is just pseudo-intellectual circle-jerking and social signalling.
>>8272635
J.K. Rowling
>>8273066
A late bloomer, huh?
>>8273066
checked
>>8273072
I guess you can say that, but I only met common people when I was 6. I felt an instant, physical revulsion that has never since left.
>>8273083
It's cool dude. Some people just don't have the same opportunities as others. No need to beat yourself up over it. You did your best and that's all that matters.
If you guys could actually write maybe this would be fixed lol
>>8273090
Thank you, I appreciate it. Some of us need to keep the patrician blood blue, after all.
>>8273124
Speak for yourself
And lose the NYT bestseller meme descriptions, its bad form
>>8273124
Think I've spotted who the angry pleb is; who can't appreciate beauty for its own sake (and the passing transience of life) but is instead obsessed with leaving a 'legacy' as if that actually matters.
I wish I read fiction so I could have an opinion on this
>>8273128
Hah! I have no use for that city. I'm just equipment for other people's living, just like you.
>>8273134
I'll rephrase, your Periscope page will only matter to YOU and whatever small circle of people will follow you.
>>8273143
And that is wonderful. Believe me.
>>8273144
We'll be alright.
>>8271520
Literally all of this is due to the mechanics of late capitalism.
Millenials are the poorest, most scholastic, least promiscuous, least married, most introverted, and least independent generation of adults since WW2. Young people are encouraged to live much like grown children, as the factors which traditionally facilitated the transition to adulthood are now moribund at best.
>>8273175
There are a lot of long words in there, Miss; we're naught but humble pirates.
>>8273175
It's not really surprising, this has been the general direction for a while, see neoteny.
>>8272793
this is probably a better hegelian answer, though in theory if it were possible to turn back to modernism it'd likely become postmodernism like >>8272737 says
>>8272774
>also 'going back' to other time periods in terms of art is also postmodernism
i'd actually argue that that's modernism.
i just think postmodernism is modernism, i don't really see the difference.
>>8273175
>least promiscuous
ebin
>>8273194
Statistically it's true
Although I think it's because being beta is more accepted
>>8273194
Both of your parents have likely had more sex than you
Hookup culture is nothing new, peaking in the 70s and 80s with the pre-AIDS disco scene
>>8273175
So how would socialism (or whatever you have in mind) make people read the classics? Everyone is already exposed to some literature in schools, yet they don't continue reading it. It isn't the result of capitalism, it's the result of television and the internet.
>>8273189
Modernism proposes even when it questions.
Post-modernism questions even when it proposes.
>>8272976
Holy shit, the pre-Raphaelites are the true meme painters. I mean, every retard who wants to seem cultured seems to love them, while by and by, as far as art history and aesthetics go, they're non-entities (but I'll admit their paintings are great, even though they're tacky as fuck).
But honestly, just go look at any pre-raphael painting, compare that to the pre-raphaelites and tell me they're trying to "go back" instead of "doing something new with pre-raphaelite inspiration".
Also, people argue (and have a point, though I disagree) that fucking Don Quijote, one of the foundational texts of whatever it is we understand as literature (inb4 greeks or whatever, you know exactly what I mean) is a postmodern book, do you honestly think a bunch of english pussies from a 100 years ago are exempt of being postmodern?
>>8273219
>Both of your parents have likely had more sex than you
Well, no fucking shit, Sherlock. They've been married for years.
>>8273189
Modernism comes from The Enlightenment. Postmodernism is a reaction to The Enlightenment and capitalism.
>>8273251
newb here, is pic related bullshit or truth?
>>8273271
both
>>8273247
>as far as art history and aesthetics go, they're non-entities
>maybe if I lie nobody will notice the arts and crafts movement
>or that morris was a major financial force
>or that he started a decorating company with burne-jones which defined the modern aesthetic
>or that he's pretty typical of his era to the point he's considered one of the major Victorian figures in the founding of modernism
>and had a major influence on modernism due to his supplying the cyanide which made fauvism possible
>and all that architecture is only owned by rich people these days so it's bound to be obscured
>thank god nobody will know the poems of the good rossetti or robert browning
>it might seem like preRaphaelite influence killed off the romantics then and did more than paintings
>tell me they're trying to "go back"
>good thing they never made things by traditionalist methods as an opposition to skill without thought that could seem modernist
>like all those tapestries have to be moth eaten by now, nobody will know they objected to mechanical looming
how could I be so blind as to think the modern era begins or ends when all the art history of and literature books says it does! next i'll be thinking that the greeks had sci-fi and self referential works.
stop being an idiot and buying the "postmodernism could mean anything XD lol" meme. you don't for don quixote, so maybe read a book on modernism and what it means before excluding what most people see as the beginnings of modernism in England as too postmodern to be modernists. the point of modernism is that history isn't inherently progressive and illuminating the problems of industrial progress, and one of the ways of criticising those problems of the enlightenment's assumptions is elevating the values of the past.
>>8273227
Socialism makes people infantile in the first place. Being infantile without having a government caring about you is simply unsustainable.
>>8272976
Going back NOW you meme
There was a wave of neoclassicism in post-war painting yet them playing with older aspects meant post-modern approach, see Edward Lucie Smith's Artoday.
>>8271606
>I can't imagine anyone who would snub their nose at reading Rowling's "Harry Potter" simply because they are targeted at children
>>8273227
Literature classes are being heavily funded in favor of STEM
Classics are almost never taught, even at an AP highschool level
>>8273175
>the factors which traditionally facilitated the transition to adulthood
w-which ones anon
>>8273249
With more people dumbass
>>8273295
>in terms of art
>I MEAN ONLY ART NOW
>EXCEPT NOT NOW BECAUSE THAT MIGHT SEEM LIKE ALL ART THAT GOES BACK NOW IS POSTMODERN EVEN IF IT'S NAIVE
uhhuh sure buddy
>>8273306
Good jobs, easy loans, lower standard of living, casual attitudes toward marriage and child-rearing
>>8271520
>Why does Harry Potter stick with everyone? Is it marketing? Could be, I suppose, but, like someone said below, I read Harry Potter when the first book was just that...the first book. I was in my early twenties. Harry stayed with me for days, weeks even. Did that make me unsophisticated? Does it still, since, now in my late thirties, I remain a loyal lover of Jo Rowling's work? Stephen King himself reads YA -- I'd love to see someone call him unsophisticated to his face
lol
>>8273309
he did say postmodernism continues modernism so it's obvious he's talking about art practices during the 20th century at least
>>8273227
>So how would socialism
what? why bring this up?
>>8273368
He said that the problem is late capitalism, so he must have an alternative of some sort.
>>8272305
>implying one must read material published in current year
plebs, the lot of em
>>8272645
I feel as if nostalgia is almost fictitious in its character. It's like being intoxicated; you remember all the good parts, but never the bad, unless it's truly traumatic, like the jews, or whatever.
>>8273373
Feudalism is the more logical alternative. Tried and true.
>>8273373
not necessarily
don't assume this next time
>>8273278
not him but i think you're overselling the pre-raphaelite influence on modernism
>and had a major influence on modernism due to his supplying the cyanide which made fauvism possible
i don't see how this is possible at all
>>8273368
/lit/ is predominantly socialist
>>8273365
the problem is that there're movements, both modernist and non-modernist, which reference back to earlier movements, modernist and non-modernist, and don't get called postmodernism but still exist now.
primitivism keeps going, surrealism keeps going, lots of naive art will be referential without being postmodern.
for instance: l.s. lowry is a modernist painter working into the 1960s. terry gilliam's references to him in brazil are postmodern, oasis referencing him in their masterplan video is postmodern, but lowry referencing bellmer, rossetti, or the impressionists is modernism still.
>>8273414
lowry died surrounded by his collection of rossettis.
>cyanide made fauvism possible
phthalocyanine green is that acid green you see in matisses. the mass production of paints without needing rare minerals is what the straight from the tube fauvists are known for, and amongst those colours are the blues and greens which came from cyanide mixtures.
morris owned the largest cyanide mine in england, and the mass production and marketing of that kind of green is largely his fault. it was even bigger before the the fauvists, used in wallpaper everywhere, until people worked out the early compounds killed people. it's why you shouldn't touch anything green from the late victorian era, and certainly never eat out of it or get it wet.
>>8273461
lol
>>8273461
LOL
before the great wandering jew exodus from /pol/ not too long ago perhaps
>>8271520
The prolongation of youth being portrayed as the best thing that can happen to you.
>>8273468
yeah there are other criteria to classify something as postmodern
>the mass production of paints without needing rare minerals is what the straight from the tube fauvists are known for
i don't doubt that new types of paint are an influence on painting but i'm not sure that fauvism was impossible without the green. it follows from stylistic developments of neo-impressionism, especially the influence of colour theory
also i don't think the fauves weren't as important in defining modernism as cubism (even though the influence of cezanne is apparent in both) and surrealism -- the latter of which seems to continue the legacy of dada more than anything
>>8273565
>i don't doubt that new types of paint are an influence on painting but i'm not sure that fauvism was impossible without the green. it follows from stylistic developments of neo-impressionism, especially the influence of colour theory
no, it stems from cheap paint which you didn't have to mix, and fauvists took that as a literal thing. the reason why they're using the colour they are using is because that's straight out of the tube colour. it's also the reason they got slated which i'm sure they had a good laugh about.
>fauves aren't that important
that's matisse and derain you're saying aren't important to modernism.
derain's the reason why african sculpture came into play for the cubists if you believe gertrude stein, and both are friends with picasso, so pretending that cubism is developing in a vacuum seems like you're backpeddling so hard you don't know how often these people switch tables at the same cafe.
derain's apollinaire's illustrator so it's not even like his influence was just in modern painting alone. matisse is probably one of the most instantly recognisable modernists, so i don't know where you're coming from on that.
>influence of cezanne
>forgetting about gauguin
next you'll be pretending that braque was copying picasso
>continue the legacy of dada
jesus christ, read a book.
dali hung around with the dadaists, but they were political while he wasn't and he ended up straight up dumping them to pursue his own shit when they started to pretend they were more communist than they were so they could kick the homo out (who was probably the only true communist amongst them). breton called him a nazi iirc.
duchamp also dumped the dadaists just after the war, and even though apollinaire slated his early cubist nudes, the two of them wound up friends. probably because the cubists snubbed him and he cited them as his reason to never join a group again.
dada is still going btw, it's why there's dame edna everage who was a wonderful dadaist before he put on a dress too.
try not bullshitting when you don't even have a first year understanding of art.
>>8271599
>2. devoting your life to someone else.
sure my goy, spend your time and energy earning money then spend your time, energy and money to be noticed by a few girls so that they let you try to make them cum, like they let dozens of boys beforehand and they will let dozens afterwards.
>>8271520
A lot of young adult books started when I was still a teenager and I want to know how the story goes.
>>8271599
Wow. You have been legitimately spooked and I am not even memeing. Way to be like 99% of the other retards.
>>8273055
I don't like red wine because I don't like the taste of grapes and no matter what I do I can't acquire a taste for them.
>>8273748
>no, it stems from cheap paint which you didn't have to mix, and fauvists took that as a literal thing.
>>influence of cezanne, forgetting about gauguin
which is it? matisse read signac and practiced divisionism, owned works by van gogh, gauguin and cezanne, but he is not at all influenced by the neo-impressionists?
>that's matisse and derain you're saying aren't important to modernism
no it isn't. i'm specifically saying they aren't as important to modernism. you seem to think that fauvism is the definition of modernism, but in terms of future developments in modernism and artistic legacies, fauvism isn't as great as cubism and surrealism.
>derain's the reason why african sculpture came into play for the cubists
do you think african art is a bigger influence on cubism than papier colle?
>so pretending that cubism is developing in a vacuum
>>influence of cezanne, forgetting about gauguin
which is it?
>matisse is probably one of the most instantly recognisable modernists
good for him but that doesn't address my point
>but they were political while he wasn't
the surrealists were political. surrealism has more to do with breton and his circle than dali.
>duchamp
not the best example of a surrealist. he contributed to exhibition designs but he, like picasso and de chirico are only associated with the surrealists rather than being surrealists themselves
>dada is still going btw
no shit, so is surrealism
>try not bullshitting when you don't even have a first year understanding of art.
funny guy
>>8272964
the characters are terrible and the writing is barely passable
>>8274034
neo- and post-impressionists
>>8274010
Have you tried brandy or cognac? Granted, they taste about as much like grapes as whiskey tastes like grains.
>>8273303
>Classics are almost never taught
I guess you'll have to define 'classics', Anon.
Either that or my old school district had a stellar English curriculum (which I fucking doubt), because we went over a fair amount of classic literature every year.
>>8273175
Best post ITT
>When you can't discuss these things IRL because laypeople will never take seriously the idea that the effect of systems can change as they play themselves out
>Just a bit more time/once we implement this policy things will go back to normal
>>8272635
The Bartimaeus Trilogy by Jonathan Stroud is good. I also enjoyed the Kingmaker Kingbreaker duo by Karen Miller (though her later series did not impress me as much).
I also enjoyed reading John Flanagan's The Ranger's Apprentice, but it's been a few years since I finished it so I probably don't remember it all clearly. His Brotherband series of books is only mediocre.
There's Eric Flint's 1632 series, although I'm not sure if that's technically YA. I found the first book in the younger section of my local bookstore but they might not all fit there.
The Temeraire series by Naomi Novik.The Hobbit, but Tolkien
All I can think of off the top of my head.
This is being seriously over-analyzed. The real problem is shortened attention spans thanks to technologies and the modern world. How on earth is a dense work that challenges you to explore and analyze ideas thoroughly going to compete for people's attention with YA lit "It's like a movie you can watch in your head ~rawr~ :3" and Netflix/social media
>>8271520
I mean... at least they're reading?
>>8271520
Most adult books having absolutely dull, unimaginative content and mundane themes.
>>8274183
You can market to people's desire for status. Smart people read big difficult books. I read this big difficult book, therefore I'm smart."
It worked for Infinite Jest and still works for Johnathon Franzen
>>8274224
To what extent are those infinitely repeatable though?
If you're suddenly in a situation where all the literature has to be heavily marketed, then you're going to end up undercutting one of the key advantages of books in that they're comparatively cheap to produce. If they all had to be advertised or pulled under single umbrellas to be advertised we'd probably end up seeing a lot less variety. Worst case scenario, "smart lit" just becomes it's own YA, full of familiar tropes, safe ideas, and superficially deep content
I'm not convinced that manufacturing the demand for adult literature would solve the problems that have led us to the point where the demand would have to be manufactured in the first place
Because we're all fucking children. We're children because our parents were too busy with their careers to raise us. (In the past, there would be at least one parent around.) We were essentially raised by television. Or in other words, it's like we weren't raised at all. We are feral.
>These endings are emblematic of the fact that the emotional and moral ambiguity of adult fiction—of the real world—is nowhere in evidence in YA fiction. These endings are for readers who prefer things to be wrapped up neatly, our heroes married or dead or happily grasping hands, looking to the future. But wanting endings like this is no more ambitious than only wanting to read books with “likable” protagonists.
Jesus, what a load of shit. Take Hunger Games, a pretty mediocre series but it neither has a satisfying ending, nor a likeable protagonist nor lacks moral ambiguity.
>>8274245
>of the key advantages of books in that they're comparatively cheap to produce
Huh? As in write? Then it's hard to qualify the cost. As in "the product", it's the most expensive entertainment medium.
> "smart lit" just becomes it's own YA, full of familiar tropes, safe ideas, and superficially deep content
Happened a good while ago already.
>>8273307
>anglo-centrism
>>8274255
>Huh? As in write? Then it's hard to qualify the cost. As in "the product", it's the most expensive entertainment medium.
As in, to publish a book is significantly cheaper than to produce a huge CG blockbuster or even the few million for an independent film.
Comparatively in literature, it's much easier for some complete unknown to write a thing no conventional audience would be interested in and at least find somebody to do a limited print run
>>8274287
Ah, sure. Thought from that POV, music would be about as cheap to make.
Besides, I still don't see the issue, sure advertisement pushes everything not advertised in the background but it was always that way; people who wanted something beyond the mainstream always found a way to get it too. Thanks to the Internet now, the hurdle to get any work out is lower than ever. The effect of word of mouth is much stronger too, given how we're all connected with faggots across the globe.
>>8274034
>which is it?
if you could quote in context you said >>8273565
>also i don't think the fauves weren't as important in defining modernism as cubism (even though the influence of cezanne is apparent in both)
you seem to think that cezanne influences both cubism and the fauves, which is true, but ignores one of the keep modernist and fauvist influences, who is gauguin.
keeping in mind i just told you that the fauves themselves influenced cubism, as a response to how the fauves operate this kind of nonsense makes me think you can't follow a sentence.
cezanne's blacks inspired matisse before fauvism, but fauvism itself takes its colour cues much more from gauguin than from cezanne, and since you'd gone on about colour theory that's pretty important.
especially since you're responding to a section about how painting from the tube, which apparently a revelation to you, is a key part of their movement, you might want to consider that cezanne's only unmixed colour is black and the one the fauves don't use.
i thought you might like to know not just that they were influences on cubism but also that cezanne's influence on fauvism isn't strong compared to gauguin's, if you do want to bring in whose palate they do copy.
>no it isn't. i'm specifically saying they aren't as important to modernism.
they're not as important as the people they directly influenced? and not important in that matisse is one of the foremost modernists?
>you seem to think that fauvism is the definition of modernism, but in terms of future developments in modernism and artistic legacies, fauvism isn't as great as cubism and surrealism.
you seem to think that misconstruing my argument is a good idea. matisse influences a lot more than just one movement he started, and derain influenced cubism, so anyone you're attaching to the cubist lineage traces back to him. surrealism on the other hand traces its lineage back to matisse's influence also, because he's friends with man ray, tzara, and was a neighbour to aragon. he also became friends with masson after he fell out with the surrealists and they influenced each other. you're talking out of your ass because you think you can divorce the fauves from either movement and pretend they just started up one day without any legacy from either, when they owe a lot to both.
>do you think african art is a bigger influence on cubism than papier colle?
omg you idiot. picasso was robbing african heads from the ethnographic museum and louvre and most of what people recognise as a picasso is from that period, so yeah, derain's influence affected not just most of his most famous work, but also probably cost france several irreplaceable artifacts. or are you trying to say that braque was the more famous of the cubists and has left a longer influence in cut outs than say, matisse?
>which is it?
lol again, you're so black and white you're really not even comprehending what the difference between a major and minor influence on a work is. (1/2)
>>8272334
It would be impossible to create a proper poll because even with nobody watching people would lie.
>>8272591
It's pretty much YA.
>>8274034
go try to find the black in a fauvist work if you want to see whether it's closer to gauguin or cezanne.
>good for him but that doesn't address my point
considering your retarded point is that cubism and surrealism were bigger in modernism than the fauves, i think proving that the fauves influenced both cubism and surrealism would put something of a puncture in that point. so yes, it does address your point, you're just too thick to remember what your point was apparently.
>no shit, so is surrealism
apparently only current surrealism is carrying on the legacy of dada though. most of the surrealists seem to think they were getting the fuck away from dada and its bullshit though, so that again seems to conflict with your idea that the thing carrying on the legacy is surrealism not current dada. kek. so fucking dumb and so fucking backpeddling.
>not the best example of a surrealist
duchamp's an example of a dadaist and cubist who rejected both and inspired surrealism. with matisse and picasso, he's considered one of the most important modernists, and reinforces my point about how derain's influence (which includes his association with apollinaire) was more powerful than your precious cubists who derain also inspired. it's an argument against your point that the cubists were a stronger influence compared with derain, since one of the chief modernists lol noped on one of them and it wasn't the fauvist.
>funny guy
you're not, you're a wanker who doesn't even want to learn just dig his heels in when he's blatantly wrong.
>>8274348
>keep
*key modernist influences
fucking autocorrect. but seriously, who goes for cezanne ahead of gauguin for influences on the fauves?
tl;dr of all this is that you can't claim derain who influenced cubism has no legacy in cubism, while also trying to pretend that surrealism came from dada as an homage rather than a get the fuck away from breton and had no links with matisse when that's where half of them ran.
>>8274153
Are you non-American?
Outside of AP classes, the only pre-20th century work I was ever assigned was Romeo and Juliet in 9th grade
>>8274319
You're probably right
The idea of books as a medium where things need to be widely marketed and marketable doesn't sit right with me
It does seem inevitable the way were going however
>>8274419
Not him but American
That's legitimately upsetting, i was in a shitty high school only 5 years ago and we still read things like The Metamorphosis, Heart of Darkness, Sound and the Fury, and One Hundred years of Solitude for our AP classes, although I didn't appreciate the latter two until later
>>8274201
Actually, you're onto something.
YA gets a lot of flak on this board (and rightfully so -- it's largely schlock) but commercial lit in general is pretty horrible.
Very few 20-somethings are reading the Hunger Games at the exclusion of Dostoevsky. They're reading it at the exclusion of John Grisham or Danielle Steele. These "general population" readers will probably never reach much higher than Stephen King or Michael Crichton. They read purely for enjoyment and thrill, which YA often supplies without the bloat of general commercial lit.
>>8274419
Same anon; I'm from Texas.
My courses went over several pieces from Edward Allen Poe (Cask and Telltale Heart off the top of my head, but there were others), Pride and Prejudice, a Tale of Two Cities, pieces of the Odyssey, Frankenstein, and Persuasion. And I'm sure there were others that are slipping my mind.
I only ever had one AP course.
>>8274348
>but ignores one of the keep modernist and fauvist influences
you literally denied matisse had any influence from neo- and post-impressionists. then you made a point of saying that they did influence him. this is why i asked you 'which is it' -- i thought that much was obvious. but yes let's keep score of who mishandles what information. keeping in mind the whole reason i engaged in conversation with you was because of the one thing you said about fauvism being impossible without the green.
>this kind of nonsense makes me think you can't follow a sentence.
he says as he misinterprets a sentence
>which apparently a revelation to you
i don't know what you're reading. are you having a stroke?
>if you do want to bring in whose palate they do copy.
in terms of composition and constructing a work
>they're not as important as the people they directly influenced?
no, the compositional traits of abstract art are owed mostly to cubism, papier colle, passage, cezanne
>you seem to think that misconstruing my argument is a good idea
that is what you have been doing. even changing the wording of posts instead of copying them directly
>because he's friends with man ray, tzara, and was a neighbour to aragon.
OH WOW! that explains why surrealism and fauvism are nearly identical!
>they influenced each other
how? you're not even saying anything
>most of what people recognise as a picasso is from that period
oh you mean the work that isn't cubist?
>his most famous work
not the point
>you're so black and white you're really not even comprehending what the difference between a major and minor influence on a work is.
again, you literally denied there was any influence from neo- and post-impressionists on matisse.
>no, it stems from cheap paint
>no
>go try to find the black in a fauvist work if you want to see whether it's closer to gauguin or cezanne.
vlaminck?
>i think proving
when? in any case matisse being recognisable does nothing to further the point that fauvism is a huge influence on modernism considering other modernists are also recognisable. and him being recognisable does not highlight any influence he had on cubism or surrealism. it's not a point, like most of the things you've tried to say in this thread
>most of the surrealists seem to think they were getting the fuck away from dada and its bullshit though
yes the trial of maurice barres for example, but that doesn't mean the two aren't linked in practice.
>duchamp's an example of a dadaist and cubist who rejected both and inspired surrealism.
i.e. not a surrealist. SO. FUCKING. BACKPEDALLING. XD something else to keep score of since you seem to want to do anything except raise a good point
>he's considered one of the most important modernists, and reinforces my point about how derain's influence (which includes his association with apollinaire) was more powerful than your precious cubists
whaaaaaat lol
>when he's blatantly wrong.
no u, which reinforces my point how i'm right
>>8274409
influences on both fauvism and cubism
>derain who influenced cubism
he influenced picasso who influenced cubism. he didn't influence cubism because the african period isn't cubist. braque found influence in cezanne too. braque and picasso made the greatest advances in cubism that are far from what the fauvists achieved and are closer to cezanne's ideas of the realisation of art than matisse's ideas of expression or the quick outdoor paintings of the fauves. or even the use of complimenting colours (from n- p-impressionists)
not only are you making shit up about art you're making shit up about what i'm saying. i really have no idea how your mind operates but it's inadequate
> surrealism came from dada as an homage
the fuck are you talking about
it sure as hell didn't come from fuckin fauvism
>>8273278
>maybe if I lie nobody will notice the arts and crafts movement
Who didn't influence modernism
>or that morris was a major financial force
Financial
>or that he started a decorating company with burne-jones which defined the modern aesthetic
Bauhaus did it tbqh
>or that he's pretty typical of his era to the point he's considered one of the major Victorian figures in the founding of modernism
source, french symbolism was much more important for that
>and had a major influence on modernism due to his supplying the cyanide which made fauvism possible
Fauvism is another minor vanguard, that only gets some rep because of what the fauvists did elsewhere
>and all that architecture is only owned by rich people these days so it's bound to be obscured
opinion
>thank god nobody will know the poems of the good rossetti or robert browning
if they do or don't, doesn't change the fact that it wasn't influential for modernism as a whole
>it might seem like preRaphaelite influence killed off the romantics then and did more than paintings
what
>tell me they're trying to "go back"
I did not
>good thing they never made things by traditionalist methods as an opposition to skill without thought that could seem modernist
modernism takes skill, I doubt you could paint like Grosz or Marc or even Pollock tbqh
>like all those tapestries have to be moth eaten by now, nobody will know they objected to mechanical looming
dude what
Dude, you're mad as fuck, I didn't imply any of that. I actually think postmodernism means a series of very set in stone things, even more than modernism, and I don't think history is "progress" at all, but that is not the sole (or even major) point of modernism.
>>8273290
Socialism is against government, much more than memebertarians
>>8274348
Dude, be honest.
You just read that history of black book and decided it was as good as reading the canon of art history, don't you? Either that, or you're revolutionary but too raw in your approach, because you seem to raise BOTH "the autonomy of art" and material conditions as being the key factor to levels I have never seem.
It is revolutionary, but it's also a bit dumb.
>>8274575
>you literally denied matisse had any influence from neo- and post-impressionists.
where? all I did was add an influence to your idea that cezanne influenced both the fauves and cubism. which is kind of a ridic as an influence to the movement since cezanne's influence on one of the fauves is in the nonfauve works.
it's kind of hard for me to be denying post impressionist influence when i added gauguin as a more direct influence, since he was one.
>>if you do want to bring in whose palate they do copy.
>in terms of composition and constructing a work
lol back pedal faster. this argument started with you claiming
>. it follows from stylistic developments of neo-impressionism, especially the influence of colour theory
gauguin's a post impressionist before you try to claim you meant his colour theory by neo-impressionism, and no, what happened with fauvism is that they did something unheard of- put unmixed ready made paint straight from the tube onto canvas. you can even see the circles formed by the tube top on the canvases. it's what made it new- what made it modern.
it's also hilarious you think by colour theory you meant composition. next it'll be colour means line
>>>again, you literally denied there was any influence from neo- and post-impressionists on matisse.
>>no, it stems from cheap paint
>>no
fauvism does stem from cheap paint. you claimed it was neo-impressionist colour palates, and it wasn't. you're now trying to pretend you meant post impressionists too, so it looks like you didn't overlook the major influence on their colour theory in favour of cezanne
>>they're not as important as the people they directly influenced?
>no, the compositional traits of abstract art are owed mostly to cubism, papier colle, passage, cezanne
suddenly it's about abstract art now? kek
>OH WOW! that explains why surrealism and fauvism are nearly identical!
wow you really suck at discerning influence. it's great though that you want to claim neo-impressionism as fauvism's main influence but when the surrealists i mention say outright that matisse is an influence, that's too much inference.
>vlaminck?
oh yes, the third founder, who nobody actually rates and is of no influence. oh wait, he's not generally not considered a founder, and his palette only gets dark in his later works. almost like he moved away from the principal movement toward cezanne.
>>most of what people recognise as a picasso is from that period
>oh you mean the work that isn't cubist?
I mean when he's making cubist paintings and sculptures of african heads.
>>i think proving
>when? in any case matisse being recognisable does nothing to further the point that fauvism is a huge influence on modernism considering other modernists are also recognisable.
aw, you cut off the part where I told you I proved fauves influenced cubism through derain (stein's assertation that's where the heads are coming from) and that matisse is cited by numerous surrealists as an influence
>>8273271
it's very subjective.seriously though, whoever put ''sciences'' in modernist and ''humanities'' in po-mo deserves a death sentence
>>8274383
Mate, holy fucking shit, are you the grandson of Derain or some shit? Becuase the truth is, fauvism is a minor AS FUCK vanguard, while Dada, Surrealism, Cubism and Futurism are literally the most important vanguards by EVERY text I've ever read. I've had to read Calvin Thomkins' Ducham biography twice, and by all acounts, even Sankt Max the Spooksman him had a bigger influence on him, with Derrain being mentioned only as one of the post-impressionists (that's how small those groups are, they don't even get mentioned by their own names, mostly being grouped under "ppl who liek van gogh lols" all of the time).
Fauvism had fuck all to do with surrealism, and even if you autistically mention how the greatest painter ever, André Derrain, was the sole moving force of 20th century painting, the fact is that his influence, if present, is something most artists had BEFORE joining said vanguards.
And surrealism doesn't follow or get away from Dada, they appropriate some elements while changing some and ignoring others completely, but the fact that the first surrealists were ALL dadaists, argues for Dada's influence much more than Fauvism or anything else.
Being 'associated' with Apollinaire back then meant you liked art and getting high, because these people all knew each other. Shit, Tzara lived in the same street as Lenin in Zurich. These people all lived in the same neighbourhood, went to the same bars and etc., no shit they're associated.
>>8274575
>>8274575
This guy is extremely confusing, I'm having trouble replying to him because he twists shit in a way that would make a layman think Derrain is actually Van Gogh AND Gauguin in terms of influence
>>8274660
I can't be bothered to 2/2 this because it's actually sad you can't accept you fucked up and gave a barely high school level analysis and refuse even stein's or the surrealists' assertations that the cubists and surrealists were influenced by matisse and derain. that's straight up revisionism.
>>8273271
it's about 50-50
>>8274676
Dude, you're being the revisionist.
I've read and studied quite a lot on modernism, and nowhere your claims are made, while the other guy's are pretty much common sense, to the point you're baffling me. Do you have a lot of Derrains in your cellar and want to prop up his value to retire or some shit?
>>8272017
>b-b-but muh life expectancy... muh internet...
>>8274596
>aesthetes didn't exist because symbolists did
nice to know the UK has been subsumed by France
>phthalocynine died with the fauvists
pretty sure it's the standard cheap greens and blues still, popularised by the fauvists for artists, and by morris to errybody else before that
>who owns buildings is opinion
some of them are in trust at least go with that
>i didn't say they're trying to go back that was only the poster you were responding to
hi new anon you seem to be lost in the quote chain
>you can't paint like Pollock
lulz
>dude what
do you want me to explain tapestries or mechanical looming
like it or not, morris was a powerhouse. his designs are still fucking everywhere and half the reason why he was big was because he was ironically big business while pushing this shit.
>>8274611
no, i studied art history, and i'm not even being revolutionary about it. the shit you/the other guy are freaking out over is stuff that even freshers grasp. it's why i know the guy who couldn't link matisse and derain to the rest of modernism didn't know they're all hanging out in the same area. it's also why i know derain's in with appolinaire before appolinaire's big, and that the guy anon wants to use to prove cezanne's influence over fauvism derain pulled into painting from writing porn. it's really not at all revolutionary what i'm saying, which is the sad part about all of this. if i was saying something out there or trolling it would be less disappointing how stubborn that guy and now you are being about basics.
>>8274660
>where?
>no, it stems from cheap paint
>no
>cezanne's influence on one of the fauves is in the nonfauve works.
you're blind
>it's also hilarious you think by colour theory you meant composition.
no, by colour theory i didn't mean palate. also i said 'constructing' with the way cezanne built up paintings in mind -- single colour by single colour. and that plays into how the composition works
>fauvism does stem from cheap paint.
AND stylistic influence. your claim was that it would be impossible for the fauvism to exist without the cheap paint. i disagree because there was also a strong stylistic influence
>pretend you meant post impressionists too
no obviously not if i've been directly referring to cezanne this entire time. also i've never denied gauguin was an influence, it just doesn't add anything to the conversation
>suddenly it's about abstract art now?
oh i forgot how abstraction was such a minor part of modernism
>wow you really suck at discerning influence. it's great though that you want to claim neo-impressionism as fauvism's main influence but when the surrealists i mention say outright that matisse is an influence, that's too much inference.
you said nothing here. surrealism was primarily literary and owed much to freud's theories of the unconscious. friendship doesn't mean influence and you still haven't managed to explain that point at all
>fauvism doesn't use black except when it does but that doesn't count
ok sure
>I mean when he's making cubist paintings
the fuck
> that matisse is cited by numerous surrealists as an influence
ok? i've already addressed this point of minor influence
>>8274676
i don't refuse it i acknowledged it in my last post. you seem to have trouble reading arguments, processing the information, and making your own arguments in response. but yeah sure i'm the one with the 'high school analysis' except for the times you've just straight ignored my point when i've gone into detail. as opposed to you who just rattles off all the information you can possibly remember and it never builds up to passing as actual evidence. i majored in art history. if you want to know the names of countless articles and books that track the same trajectory of modernism as me then let me know
>>8274717
I'm not, while you're trying to revise even my argument because you got some basic shit wrong. But on the other hand, I've been through the Courtauld Gallery enough it should be compensation for any of your shit.
>>8274751
>the fuck
You're looking for Picasso around 1906-09, and the stealing the African heads stories are kind of great. He had a gofer.
Most of the rest is just you trying to desperately shift goalposts.
>>8274746
You pretty much misunderstood everything I had to say.
The UK hasn't been subsumed as much as it's art history is pretty insular.
I didn't say that at any moment and I don't really think fauvism NEEDED a specific blue or green to happen, it only needed post-impressionism.
No, but the importance of these buildings is an opinion.
That's not what I said and I'm the first guy you replied to. What I said is they weren't that influential.
You probably can't.
I just don't see how mechanical or manual looming (or even tapestries) are a thing in this discussion.
Honestly, I'm forced to think that the anglophone world AGAIN can't accept the rest of the world is more importat than then, because honestly, while you do seem educated, you seem educated in a way I've never seen before, amongst my professors, my classmates, the authors I've read - both for school and leisure.
I mean, I know Gombrich is pretty bad, you don't have to ilustrate me on that, but looking at the remissive index in his Story of Art, Derrain isn't even mentioned.
>>8274775
>you guys are discussing art history in a literature board! My off-topic post about this subject you two are clearly very passionate about is surely more important to you than this discussion :^)
>>8272595
> There's nothing wrong with any of that.
There is. They're watering down the quality of people.
> They are reading for the purpose of enjoyment, so if they enjoy it, it IS good.
> They are eating shit for the purpose of enjoyment, so if they enjoy it, it IS good.
You should seriously kill yourself you objectively retarded fuck.
>>8274772
>No, but the importance of these buildings is an opinion.
m8 arts and crafts buildings are beautiful.
>no derrain in gombrich
are you the one asking if i only read a small history?
>UK art history is insular
they were an empire at the time. burne-jones is pretty important /lit/ wise even if he weren't important art wise, which he is along with morris. there seems to be this "it can't be big if i haven't heard of it" vibe here.burne-jones is a reference you should get from having read Wilde, who no doubt is also too insular
>fauvism didn't need a specific blue or green
they need mass produced ready made paints for it to cause the stir. I'm sure Olympia didn't need the black outline either but Manet's provocation wouldn't be the same without it. fauvism was a "look it's all ready made cheap paint which only bad decorators would use". without that, there's no scandal to fauvism.
>not what I said
here's my first post
>>8272976 I'm quoting the guy who says that 'going back' to other time period in terms of art is also post modernism. If you didn't say 'going back' complete with quote marks, then you're not the start of my quote chain, and need to go further up.
>>8274767
no literally the point from the beginning was denying that fauvism was impossible without the green. i never denied that the paint wasn't a factor ("i don't doubt") but you denied that there was any stylistic influence from neo- and post-impressionists. remember when you said 'no'? because you didn't understand where i was coming from. in fact nearly all of what followed was your wild misinterpretation of what i said (you suddenly got angry at that first post for no reason) and me trying to explain that you misinterpreted me. no moving goalposts at all. if you could logically follow an argument that would be apparent.
>You're looking for Picasso around 1906-09
half way during that period he switched to cubism. but cubism doesn't come from the african heads.
this is braque in 1907 with early developments in cubism. hmmmmm why is braque painting something in a small fishing village? is it possible that he is there because fucking cezanne painted in the same village?
is that... is that the use of passage i see, flattening the depth of the canvas... just like fucking cezanne?
>>8274817
hey, you know who else faced scandal when exhibiting?
f u c k i n g c e z a n n e
>>8274815
How is your day to day life with such a intense case of autism?
>>8274819
it is impossible without morris's empire. sure, there could have been another decorating firm which had that much impact and produced cheap paints under a different name, but without one for them to take the materials from, there's not fauvism. it's like saying it wouldn't matter if duchamp had made the readymades instead of finding them. what made them scandalous was that they're using stuff which is cheap and not high art but decorator quality. you're focused on what they look like because you have no conception of how scandalous that was to people, that an artist wouldn't mix his own paint. it's comparable to an artist who won't make his own sculpture like duchamp.
People should read whatever the fuck they want to be honest. Let them be plebeians.
>>8272514
ye like sex and pooping
>>8274828
pic 4 u
>>8274836
> People should read whatever the fuck they want to be honest. Let them be plebeians.
> People should be nazis and follow whatever ideology they want to be honest. Let them be nazis.
Those people are affecting everything around you including you, if they read shit, think shit and act shit this kills the society.
>>8272635
Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy is meant to be pretty good.
>>8272601
Made my fucking day, anon.
>>8274844
This doesn't answer my question.
I am honestly curious how the life in your own little world is, where everybody who doesn't do what you consider right and doesn't enjoy what you enjoy is wrong. How does it feel? What do you do about it?
>>8274817
I am the Quixote guy.
I only went to Gombrich because, honestly, it's the "canon" book every school on both continents I've been uses. Now, I'm starting to see where you're coming from. I recently finished reading a book, Confronting Images, which while having it's merits, could make one new to the history of art think Fra Angelico is as important as Michelangelo or Bocaccio, because his paintings are used by the author to further his point.
That's not even wrong, but I'm sure your first contact with art history must have been someone specialized on the pre-raphaelites or the fauves, because they are, by and by, minor curiosities when compared to Futurism or Cubism.
While indeed I haven't heard of Burne-Jones or Morris enough (I do know they exist, but honestly, the only dude I can remember from the pre-raphaelites without having to resort to google is Gabriel Rossetti), I still think you're grossly overstating their influence, which while no doubt seems to be huge on his contemporary english writers, really falls flat on the rest, on literature AND visual arts. And please, that doesn't mean it's bad, just that it's not IMPORTANT for modern art. I mean, I'm currently skimming the Meaning of Art by Read, who's something of a "official" british art student and not even him seems to care that much about the pre-raphaelites (though I'll give you that he seems to mention the fauves much more than any other book I've read)
>>8273055
I read classic literature like Philip K Dick, HP Lovecraft and the novelisation of Assassin Creed games, but I still love McDonalds.
Does that make me a pleb? I don't think so.
>>8274817
Now I gotta thank you. I have said Read book in both english and portuguese, and while checking the translation to see if there was a remissive index, I found these notes from a great-uncle who originally owned the book who seem great at first glance.
![Arthur-Schopenhauer-Bad-Books[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/rIm27AG.png "Arthur-Schopenhauer-Bad-Books[1].png")
>>8274836
There's a difference between tolerating cultural inferiority and encouraging it. We've long since crossed the line, and the only way to bring consumer culture back to a comfortable mediocrity is through active discouragement of intellectual self-destruction. We need to make sure the people who never grew out of children's series written for fourth graders and comics are aware that their preferred books are of significantly lower quality than other forms of literature. Choice and personal expression of this choice is fine, you're allowed to do it, but we need to also publicly express hatred and condescension for these choices in order to balance out their positive image.
I propose that in the same vein as those library posters with celebrities encouraging kids to read, we need intellectual authorities to pose in a series of motivational posters to read better books. Imagine if there was a fifteen by twenty foot poster of this Schopenhauer quote above the Young Adult section at Waterstones/Barnes and Noble. We should also target public transport.
Young adult fiction is literally the worst genre. Even worse than books written for toddlers and children. The worst Dr. Seuss book has more artistic value than the best John Green novel.
>>8274833
>A movement I consider dangerous (despite the great sympathy I have for its perpetrators) is taking shape among a small clan of youngsters. A chapel has been established, two haughty priests officiating. MM Derain and Matisse; a few dozen innocent catechumens have received their baptism. Their dogma amounts to a wavering schematicism that proscribes modeling and volumes in the name of I-don't-know-what pictorial abstraction. This new religion hardly appeals to me. I don't believe in this Renaissance... M. Matisse, fauve-in-chief; M. Derain, fauve deputy; MM. Othon Friesz and Dufy, fauves in attendance... and M. Delaunay (a fourteen-year-old-pupil of M. Metzinger...), infantile fauvelet. (Vauxcelles, Gil Blas, 20 March 1907).
abstraction was why there was outrage and inadequacy in painting as was the same outrage when f u c k i n g c e z a n n e was deemed exceptionally poor. it's also why abstraction was so slow to take hold in france compared to say germany and russia
it's why picasso still referred to the academic tradition in his paintings (just like f u c k i n g c e z a n n e and even matisse) and why france jumped right back into figurative painting during the call to order
>>8274865
>first contact
No, I just went to a very comprehensive school, which also had a design faculty. First contact is Heidegger, so even philosophy people piss me off because they don't even get dumped in the deep end like that.
>Read
Good taste, my man. Him and Hulme for lit crit are amazing too. Not enough people read him.
His novel The Green Child is beautiful too, so it's not a case of those who can't write critique
>>8274884
look, if you're really that pissed off that they squeezed paint directly onto the canvas as their thing, why not try to throw some gesso at one of their works in the name of cezanne? you could call it dadaism
>>8274959
Also, I should point out that Hulme and co. aren't PreRaphaelite/Classicist fans. Hulme thought it was elitist and false and only good for decoration in idiot middle class young people's homes as the wife might like it. He thought it was a dead art, and wrote some very bitchy shit about them, and anyone he compares to them isn't going to get off well. He's looking to create imagists and someone who was romantic (as opposed to classicists).
>tfw /lit/ gives you Bergson flashbacks.
>>8271580
You can't 'go back', only forward.
Anyways shit books have always been around and the more idiot plebs directed away from literature the better. These people have nothing to add to the canon and merely letting them view it devalues it. More people participating in a field does not make it better.
>>8274959
Never read Hulme, but honestly, based on what you say I'll give it a try.
As for Bergson, I hate to admit this, but I avoided him like the plague for quite a while, due to an awful critics professor I had who was a student of Bergson, but I'm currently prepping up to tackle Time and Free Will (weird as fuck pick for the translation name tbqh, but so what, right?)
My only question is, I have a book of his metaphysics and psychology classes. Should I go for it before T&FW / M&M / The Creative Evolution?
>>8275141
>>8274865
You might also appreciate how these reactions against the middle class norms by using there materials against them sometimes goes the other way in postmodernism leading to some interesting results, like using the materials against us as the modernists did.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PpPZbtwTjU
This is mostly about Waterhouse and Warhol, and doesn't pass through modernism proper; modernists reacted against the Waterhouses of the world, but postmodernists like to take a run at both. The way Hulme reacts against the PreRaphaelites brings about Pound and Eliot, Huxley's translation of Gourmont, but years later Warhol is stitching together by hand, like the PreRaphaelites did for artistic dress clothing. photographs of the same scenes as Waterhouse.
That's one of the beauties of postmodernism, and what brings down poststructualism, that it claims everything is interpretation now and always has been and fails to include its opinion in now.
>Bergson
that's a lot of back reading anon, and of the small pieces I remember of him, it really depends. Time and free will is to the point as a title; you need to know how Kant's notion of free will works, which isn't that hard, but it's a lot of reading if you get it straight from Kant. You can trust Bergson on his critique, he's not misrepresenting Kant so if you want to dive straight in you can, but you'll still be reading Bergson who is more mindwarping than Kant. Bergson will give you flashbacks and dissolve you slightly. It's a trip. I'm not sure I ever read it through.
Hulme's a must read if you like modernist poetry. Read's more the art side and less of a cunt, but Hulme's great for understanding Pound et al. and being a cunt. I haven't read his translation of intro to metaphysics, and the pieces of Bergson I read I'd like to stop thinking about before my head explodes.
tl;dr His stuff on free will is good but it might also cause PTSD ymmv
>>8274671
Different anon, but tip top kek at Futurism being important. It was some good stuff, but a short-lived niche.
>>8272367
He's saying "suh dude"
>>8272679
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers_Weekly_list_of_bestselling_novels_in_the_United_States_in_the_2010s
Hell, America has much worse taste than I expected.
>>8271520
Gen X never grew up
>>8274867
(You)
>>8274049
I tried brandy once and I thought it tasted like horse piss. I do like good whisky though, but I am not much of a drinker.
Maybe in a few years my tastes will change yet again as I didn't like many alcoholic drinks at first but now enjoy ale and hard cider.
>>8274844
Reading books was only ever a form of entertainment for a vast majority of people in the modern age. Book sales have been dominated by cheesy romantic novels and adventure stories for 170 years. Thats what modern childrens books are.
>>8275233
I have to go out now but I'll give it a look, thanks mate, I just love modernism, which is why we had all that attrition, but on and on, was one of the more rewarding conversations I've had in a while.
I'm fairly sharp at Kant, what I gotta go after now is some Schoppy and Aquinas (according to a friend). I WANT PTSD tbqh, I feel I need to be challenged by different thinkers for a lot of reasons, I've been into the Benjamin wank for too long now.
Thanks for the talk, m8
>>8275350
I don't even like futurism that much and agree it is a minor vanguard, all in all, but it's still fairly influential.
>>8272367
determination
>>8272622
I don't know whether to laugh or to pity you, honestly. Perhaps I'll simply allow you to writhe in your own idiocy.
>>8271599
t. 17 year old
>>8271599
Maybe wait till your an adult before you talk about what it is to be one
>>8271520
>presumably without children
Where would the kids get the money? Parents are buying books. Why the fuck does everyone believe everything the internet says?
maybe you all should grow out of childish art forms and in to adult ones, such as cinema
>>8275560
lol, "writhe in your own idiocy"
Nice, dude. Are you a writer?
>>8275957
Faggot.
>>8275925
>no TDKR under tv
>>8275925
are there any decent forums for cinema discussion? Letterboxd is more and more like Goodreads for movies and /tv/ was killed by reddit
>>8276169
There literally aren't. The occasional decent thread on /tv/ or /lit/ is the best I can find. I miss film studies courses in college, that shit was the most fascinating topic I've studied.
That NYT Mag article was pretty good right up until this point:
>If your answer is anyone other than Beyoncé (fig. 6), you might be trying a little too hard to be contrarian. Did you see her at the V.M.A.'s, in her bejeweled leotard, with the word “feminist” in enormous illuminated capital letters
I'm honestly not quite sure who she is. She had a song in the 90s about how she wasn't sure whether people were ready for her big jelly filled ass, right?
Anyway, very interesting stuff about the American novel being anti-civilization in bent when it comes to male protagonists.
some people read to escape, they can't do that with 19th century russian literature
>>8276478
Seeing as nobody alive is a 19th century Russian, 19th century Russian literature is escapist by definition
>>8276169
r/Truefilm I know it's reddit but it's actually one of the few decent subs
>>8271567
Post-modernisms detachment from academia and subsequent watering down did that, and even that relationship with academia was schizophrenic in the first place, as po-mo strived to rid the culture of academia's strictness and frameworks.
>>8275925
Where is that Kinsky picture from?
>>8277416
No one alive is a 19th century German, so I guess that means Hegel, Stirner, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, etc., are escapist literature too, right?
>>8277809
Not by definition, but you would be surprised, anon.
