/lit/ - Literature

>>8092410
I totally forgot about Stagolee and onionring! Those were two pretty cool guys. No idea what you're talking about with BB and Call of Duty - the last I saw of him, he was in the tinychat wearing a suit and talking about leaving /lit/ for good. Quentin... Quentin was a complicated person. I've never been quite sure if he had diagnosable mental issues, or was just an extreme obsessive. Sometimes he was fun, sometimes he wasn't. Either way, he was better than Sunhawk. Caps was an alright guy, but I didn't quite understand his fixation on only reading post-1945 (or pre? or some other year? don't recall) literature; it always seemed odd to me. I don't think I've been on /b/ in like 5 years, so whoever it was, it wasn't me. Is there still a tinychat or any means of communication that isn't private for /lit/friends? I think I still have Hakas and Cathal on GoodReads, but nobody else.

>>8092433
Off of 4chan you must wait / until your age is 1 then 8.

>>4838074

>>4452468
deep & edgy was a boon to discourse on 4chan

>>4440180
>Everything is subjective

There are correct and incorrect interpretations.

>>4349792

I haven't been on here for like 2 years. Did you guys ever finalise a definitive answer on whether there are firm axioms with which to justify spending excess time and money on studying "high brow" literature and putting it on such a pedestal.

Like I'm wondering why governments fund art courses when there doesn't seem to be any objective criteria that can say why you should revere Ulysses more than 50 Shades of Gray?

Thanks in advance for your responses : )

Do you agree with this man?

Jumping to a conclusion is a fallacy. If art is "more complex and innovative" then...it's more complex and innovative!, not better.

To make an "objective" observation you have to have a conclusion that follows from a premise objectively.
I.E. The water is at 100 degrees and we are in normal conditions of atmospheric pressure then it will boil.
It has been observed numerous times, it's "objectively" true for every practical purpose.

One jumps from an objectively observed premise, to an objetively observed conclusion that follows the premise.
Saying "my painting has more colours therefore it's better" is not objetive. You just jump from an objective observation to a subjective conclusion because you say so.
There is no observation, a biological or physical phenomenon to support the conclusion "it's objectively better".

Any intent of comparing arts to something with utilitarian purposes is a fundamental fallacy. A knife has an utilitarian purpose, the purpose of the knife is cutting and is objetively measurable.
Whereas a knife has an specific criteria by which can be objectively measured, art has not. The uniform criteria is not there because there is no inherent purpose.
If a scholar operates under different sets of conventions than another scholar (like it happens all the time, not all music scholars are eurocentric, and even if they are they can operate under premises of the darmstadt school or any other school of thought), which one should we hear?.
If now a scholar operates under the tenets which puts Kinkade in a favourable light, why shouldn't we listen to him?

>>2492649
>There is no consensus among writers of what constitutes good writing, and how to diagnose it.
But writers don't determine what constitutes good writing, firstly. Secondly, that's not an argument against the possibility or reality of consensus on what constitutes good writing. Please study the attached image, which addresses your concerns on this point.

>There is no consensus among artists of what constitutes good art, and how to diagnose it.
This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with art, please don't bring red herrings to the table.

>>2218331
>to compare architecture/structural building/physics to any art medium is just plain out retarded
Try to be a little more broad in your understanding friend, it's not those things that are being compared, it's the underlying principles of each discipline that are.

>>2182463
>Because literary value is not determined by measurable things like the number of pages but in qualitative terms such as "excitement", "depth", and "meaning".
That's not at all what literary value is determined by, you've got your theories mixed up. Any authentic literary evaluation is based on the mechanics of the text.

>>2182488
see pic, I've already addressed all these complaints.

I'll repeat, objectivity or subjectivity has nothing to do with literary evaluation, so all complaints on this basis are pretty much moot.

zip zop zippity bop shove it up your fucking ass doop dweedle dop

Is a democracy democratic?